Roy & Silo – Why Gay Penguins Are NOT a Good Example for Homosexuality

UPDATE: Perhaps inspired by the book, these two gay male penguins have resorted to attempting to steal eggs from other (heterosexual) couples in order to raise a chick of their own.

Telegraph UK:

A couple of gay penguins are attempting to steal eggs from straight birds in an effort to become “fathers”, it has been reported.

The two penguins have started placing stones at the feet of parents before waddling away with their eggs, in a bid to hide their theft.

But the deception has been noticed by other penguins at the zoo, who have ostracised the gay couple from their group. Now keepers have decided to segregate the pair of three-year-old male birds to avoid disrupting the rest of the community during the hatching season.

A keeper at Polar Land in Harbin, north east China explained that the gay couple had the natural urge to become fathers, despite their sexuality.

“One of the responsibilities of being a male adult is looking after the eggs. Despite this being a biological impossibility for this couple, the natural desire is still there,” a keeper told the Austrian Times newspaper.

Roy and Silo are two Chinstrap penguins in New York’s Central Park Zoo. They are both male. And for a period of time, they were a couple… A homosexual couple.

Roy and Silo had paired up and attempted to hatch a rock as if it were an egg. The zoo staff noticed this effort at parenthood, and provided the second egg of a male-female couple which had unsuccessfully tried hatching two eggs at one time.

The egg was successfully hatched, and the healthy female chick was named Tango. Tango grew up to adulthood and is now in a homosexual relationship with another female penguin.

All this, of course, was quickly trumpeted by the LGBT community as a shining example of the timeless, beautiful story that is the homosexual relationship.

“Roy and Silo chose their own gender over the opposite gender, even when the zookeepers tried to exert their bigoted fundamentalist agenda! So faithful, instead of the divorce that mars heterosexual marriages!”

“Look how caring and attentive they are in raising a chick! Dad and dad families can be healthy and balanced.”

“Tango grew up to be a well-adjusted individual, fully accepting her parents’ lifestyle choice and even embracing it by pairing with a female!”

And so on and so on. This charming tale was made into a children’s storybook called ‘And Tango Makes Three‘ to teach pre-pubescent kids that being gay is okay (and definitely not influence their sexuality, since as allllll reputable scientists know, homosexuality is 100% genetically determined and not a concious choice at all).

So are Roy and Silo (and Tango) a beautiful, fairytale (fairy tale lol!) example of how homosexual relationships exist even in natural settings? Are gay penguins a strong argument for the universal value of alternative sexual preference?

NOT QUITE. Here is why not:

1) Roy and Silo were kept in an unnatural environment, namely a zoo enclosure with no females. Still having the instincts for pairing up, Roy and Silo took the only choice afforded them – another male. It’s about as natural and free-choice as the situational homosexuality of prison shower sex. (See point 5 also.) This point has been superceded by this comment.

2) While it may be touching that they wanted to lay an egg, hatch it and raise a chick together… I find it incredibly sad that being unable to procreate, they got a rock as a substitute. It’s like that heart-breaking scene in Disney’s 1939 cartoon, The Ugly Duckling, where the Ugly Duckling is so desperate for acceptance that it adopts a fake wooden duck as its parent.

3) The zoo staff had to provide a spare egg from a heterosexual couple in order for Roy and Silo to ‘reproduce’. After all, quite clearly, purely homosexual couples cannot produce offspring. If homosexual preference really is all in the genes, the trait will quickly disappear from the gene pool, as no offspring will ever be produced from a homosexual pairing. How does that help show that homosexuality is ‘natural’? UPDATE: I forgot, homosexuality could be a recessive trait. See this comment and the immediately following reply.

4) Further undermining the theoretical notion (not the ‘indisuptable fact proven by science’ as some may argue) that homosexuality is all in the genes, Roy and Silo’s ‘daughter’ Tango grew up to display homosexual preference as well, this time in a female-female pairing. Now as you have seen from Points 2 and 3, Tango is in no way related to Roy or Silo. She has none of their genetic material – not a single line of DNA from them. So where did she get her ‘gay genes’ from? Or could it be more likely that, being raised by two homosexuality-displaying parents, she was influenced by them – an environmental cause, not a genetic one?

5) And to demolish the March of the Gay Penguins altogether, after 6 years of partnering together, Roy and Silo separated. Roy remained single, while Silo, gay icon and shining example of the alternative lifestyles of nature… Paired up with a female named Scrappy. Does this say anything about Silo’s true preferences? (PLUS: Another ’caused solely by genes and all natural’ gay penguin couple succumbs to heterosexuality.)

PS. There’s also this…

As I say below, All cuteness of penguins aside, should the sexual and familial behaviour of animals be at any time used as an example or a guide for human behaviour?

In conclusion, the following points have been raised for the reader to ponder:

I. Is homosexual preference really a ‘preference’? Would Roy and Silo have chosen males over females if they had been given the choice during their formative, adolescent and mature ages – instead of being confined in an all-male environment?

II. Is homosexuality ‘natural’? Considering that if nature were allowed to run its course, homosexual behaviour would die out within the short span of ONE GENERATION from lack of propagation – as it produces no offspring to carry on the so-called ‘gay genes’? Unless, of course, the homosexual individual ‘cheats’ and mates with a member of the opposite gender…

III. Is homosexuality really 100% genetically determined and 0% influenced by upbringing and surroundings? Tango did not inherit any ‘gay genes’ from her adoptive parents, but grew up continually exposed to the homosexual lifestyle of Roy and Silo.

IV. Point III raises a related question – If upbringing and environment can influence a child’s sexuality, what does it say about homosexual marriages and adoption and raising of children in a homosexual household? If genes are not the sole factor, then this is one way to ‘propagate’ homosexuality.

V. All cuteness of penguins aside, should the sexual and familial behaviour of animals be at any time used as an example or a guide for human behaviour? We are, after all, PEOPLE – the very definition of which excludes being beasts controlled solely by base and bestial impulses. (Well, people and not animals as far as liberal definitions are NOT involved, nor moral relativist definitions.)

235 Responses to “Roy & Silo – Why Gay Penguins Are NOT a Good Example for Homosexuality”

Your third point does not add up. If it did, homosexuality would have “died out” a good time before now. Homosexuality is pre-determined and in a person’s genes without having to be passed on from the parents – or how would homosexual people exist in the first place? It isn’t hereditary, the same way that two right-handed parents can produce a left-handed child.

But how can homosexuality be genetically pre-determined, yet not inherited via the parents? That statement goes against all commonly accepted understanding of heredity and genetics… Unless, the gene for homosexuality is a spontaneous mutation that occurs regardless of the parents’ genes.

There are more factors to take into consideration than heredity, such as the conditions in which the infant develops pre-birth, which could result in homosexuality being pre-determined. No one knows how exactly homosexuality occurs, but it is likely that it is far more complicated than simply a ‘gay gene’. The fact is that your argument that only homosexual parents produce homosexual offspring is incorrect.

I agree that this case of ‘homosexual pairings in nature’ does not seem natural at all, but there are plenty more cases where studies have shown animals to willingly enter into homosexual relationships in a natural environment.

genetics is rather more complicated than that. i am not going to argue that homosexuality is genetic, because, frankly, we just don’t have that information. we do have some research that makes it look like a possibility, but there is so much about genetics that science simply doesn’t know yet that it would be extremely premature to be sure of anything – including that homosexuality is not genetic.

your argument that if straight parents can produce a gay child then sexuality is not genetic simply does not hold. that is like saying that blond parents producing a dark-haired child proves that hair color is not genetic, when, in fact, all it proves is that the science of the issue is complicated.

your argument that if straight parents can produce a gay child then sexuality is not genetic simply does not hold.

Well, I actually do not put forward that point anywhere. Being trained in genetics, I know that the incidence of hair colour is based on dominant and recessive alleles.

So I’m well aware that straight parents can produce a gay child – or else how did homosexuality ever arise in the first place?

My point is actually that if homosexuality is at all genetically based, then every gay individual that does not successfully procreate will reduce the frequency of the genes for homosexual preference – regardless of whether such genes are singular or plural and overlapping with other, non-sexual-preference genes.

Most of these arguments are complete bullshit. Over 450 different species have been observed in homosexual relationships…in captivity and in the wild. And it is actually MORE common in the wild.
Homosexual behavior is actually believed to be a survival behavior. So it is not passed down just willy nilly. There is a purpose. Why? Because in most cases these homosexual acts are not for sexual purposes. It happens to help relationships form. And when an individual animal in a group is homosexual that animal can help raise young.
If the dumb ass who wrote this actually took his/her head out of his/her ass and put their beliefs aside, maybe he/she could see that biology and religion have no place in the same arguments.

I- Roy and Silo did have females to choose from, I believe, but here is another example of gay penguins in captivity not becoming spontaneously straight when there were females about.

II+III- I do agree with you on the point that homosexuality is not caused be any singular ‘gay gene’. It could, however, be a strange combination of other genes (I don’t know enough about genetics to make an intelligent example or explanation so I’ll spare you), but I do think it’s most likely environmental impacts- with some genetic predetermination. Otherwise, I think we’d see a lot more instances of homosexuality seeming to ‘run in the family’. It’s true that parents to treat their individual children differently, but a lot of them treat them fairly equally. However, I don’t think your comment on homosexual animals needing to ‘cheat’ on one another has any business being in there- plenty of lesbian couples get in vitro, some of them (well, I’d assume those to be bisexuals) even sleep with a man at their partner’s consent in order to get pregnant. (Although I admittedly find it rather far-fetched that a woman would agree to the use of her womb for a gay couple’s child… but who knows, might’ve happened.)

IV- I don’t think that upbringing generally influences a child’s sexuality in the “gays raise gays” way. It’s pretty evident that if your parents are gay chances are they’ll be accepting of you if you’re gay- and therefore you’re likely to come out of the closet- if we put this idea into effect we would never see gay children from blatantly and evidently homophobic parents (especially of the extremely religious variety). I can’t think of a good example of a different kind of environmental factor at the moment, but I could brainstorm some if need be.

V- I consider myself very liberal and I think both fetuses and animals have the right to live. However, I also think that a fourteen year old girl who was raped should have the right to not put her life on the line to give birth to a baby who will probably never be loved… except of course with more homosexual couples in the world I guess we have more room for adoption? 😉

I disagree with the pointless killing or torturing of animals. I also disagree with the pointless killing or torturing of people. I think you need to understand that agreeing with one of those doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing with the other.

I found this article very helpful, but I am left with a few questions. First, does anyone know *for sure* if Roy and Silo were left without any female companionship? That seems to be the dissenting point in every article I’ve looked at.

Secondly, I have heard that Silo was single once more in 2006, but only in passing mention. Is there documentation of this fact?

Here’s a question I would like to have answered. If Homosexuality is genetic (I believe it can be a mixture of choice, genes, and/or upbringing), would it be O.K. to screen for it before or during a pregnancy?

“Being trained in genetics, I know that the incidence of hair colour is based on dominant and recessive alleles”

WRONG! I am a medical graduate student, and you are most certainly NOT trained in genetics.

1. Hair color is NOT the classic model of dominant/recessive. It exhibits a form of genetic inheritance referred to as PLEIOTROPY. Look this up and you will find that the entire logic of your genetic-based arguments (including the foolish Hereditary Charts) are flat-out WRONG.

2. I have no reason to believe that the audacity of your quoted statement of above would lend you to make a reasonable argument against the INHERITED basis for homosexuality.

3. Do some research outside of whatever failed sources or Wikipedia you are you using. Crawl out of your blog and into reality.

1. Did I ever claim that hair color is based on the classic Mendelian experiment of a phenotype being solely determined by two alleles, one perfectly dominant and one perfectly recessive? Are you claiming that hair color is in NO WAY affected by dominant/recessive genetics?

Because unless you can claim and prove that, my example still stands: Homosexuality must be recessive, because if it were dominant then even the slightest presence of one of the genes for it would begin a chain effect that dooms the human race to extinction – except for that tiny mutant strain population of totally recessive heterosexual genotypes.

You also conveniently claim my logic for the entirety of the post is wrong, but lazily (as is usual for a troll) decline to bother explaining why.
, instead merely dismissing all the points on the basis of one (discredited) accusation. See very bottom of this comment for how that kind of logically fallacious reasoning can apply in my favour, though.

—————————-

2. You make no argument FOR the inherited basis of homosexuality. Yet you insinuate that my attempts are arguing against purely genetic causes of homosexuality are null and void. What, I can argue that atheists must prove God doesn’t exist ‘cos I’m lazy and that works, now?

(Used as an example: You only get extremely light blonde with all ‘eumelanin’ off genes, you only get pure homosexual with all ‘reproduce the species’ off genes. Ergo, dominant/recessive.)

From your rabid response, my psychological deduction skills (which I did not receive any training in) tell me you are homosexual or a supporter of homosexuals. Why else would you be so incensed by this posting?

It can’t be in the heartfelt defense of genetics, as I have yet to see mobs of genetics professors rioting and attacking churches over legislature promoting the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools.

———————————-

Even if I am poorly trained, it doesn’t equate to me never being trained in genetics. Yet you somehow know that I have never received genetics training! Wow!

Not only are you homosexual, you’re a psychic homosexual! (A poor one at that, having been unable to look through the thin layer of envelope to read my university transcript that lists genetics among the passed courses.)

———————————-

I also surmise you are an Obama supporter. Using your own logicking as demonstrated in 1), I contend that since Obama misnamed a famous black comedy before, therefore all his policies are totally misguided. Therefore we must ignore his rantings and kick him out of influence.

Wow, Chris, you’re a medical graduate student! That makes you so proud! So SMART!! Got all those lovely girls swooning at your feet!!! Is that the reality you face when you announce this at a party? On a date? Sorry, not impressed at all. In fact, I’m reminded of all those medical graduate students, doctoral students, etc, who seemed to believe that we, the rest of the world, should take their word as fact. I laughed in their faces then.

Get real, man. This is the world of bloggers, where those who claim to know the most, who claim to have the most degrees, etc, face as strict a scrutiny as all others.

Want to be believed? Show your stuff, man. Out-argue Scott. Show what you know, rather than claim that you know more. Give us a chance to listen to you. Anything worth listening to?

So much for rational discussion- your use of weak jokes “fairy tale lol!” and transparent bigotry weakens any argument you have tried to make….

Have you read ANY literature on the various propositions as to where homosexuality stems from because it seems to me your arguments are based on supposition and half arsed assumptions gleaned from Tabloids.

Homosexuality not natural? Neither’s mowing the lawn, dying your hair or wearing polyester- but they all happen. Some people are just gay….. and so are some animals it seems. Like it or not- thats the world. Get used to it and find something worthwhile arguing about.

“Have you read ANY literature on the various propositions as to where homosexuality stems..”

Have you? Please give references and citations, oh well-read one!

Anything that happens in nature is natural, and that’s one of the meanings of natural. Yet, just because it’s natural, does it mean that it’s what people are supposed to be like or to do? Is it natural to eat raw meat for people? Cooking is unnatural; it’s human. Mowing the lawn is unnatural but it’s human.

Some animals are gay but is that what people should be like? The thrust of Scott Thong’s argument lies in this distinction. Can’t you understand what you read? Or did you read it carefully, oh such a well-read one?

See the basic difference between people and the rest of nature? Got the drift of my reasoning? To argue from “What is” to “What should be” commits a basic fallacy in thinking. Or are we expected to accept your simplistic logic just because some people can think and others can’t (and you can’t) and that’s the way of the world?

Homosexuality not natural? Neither’s mowing the lawn, dying your hair or wearing polyester- but they all happen. Some people are just gay….. and so are some animals it seems. Like it or not- thats the world. Get used to it and find something worthwhile arguing about.

– Andy

Let’s try this experiment: Put all the homosexuals on one island continent (let’s say Australia), and all heterosexuals kept separate from them. No mixing is allowed.

What happens after, say, 50 years?

Many things are not natural… Few things that cause complete extinction within one generation are considered NOT a mutation, disease or genetic dead end.

Btw, this thread is SO not worth arguing about, that you have seen fit to argue about on it. Congrats!

It was your bigotry that made me froth at the mouth. It took me less than 2 minutes to respond if you really want to know. But it seems name calling and belittling people is your shtick and good luck to you with it. you’re quite right- why argue with narrow minded bigots? Might as well piss in the wind.

I thought that Roy and Silo did have females in their habitat. I read that they got together and completely ignored potential female mates? And if what you say is true, when and how did Silo meet his new girlfriend? Was he taken from Roy? I just don’t understand your argument, and why is it such a big deal to you if it’s natural or not? Why not just let people and penguins alike be happy? Can I send you my paper, please? What is your email?

It’s a deal to me simply because certain pro-homosexual inidividuals use Roy & Silo as an argument for the ‘beauty’ and ‘naturalness’ of a gay lifestyle. I simply wish to debunk that idea as sheer and utter nonsense that would make Darwin roll in his no-longer evolving state.

My argument is simply that using penguins to prove human behaviour is whacked out, and that there is NO WAY I can see how a behaviour that creates NO OFFSPRING can possibly be considered ‘natural’.

Roy & Silo ignored females that were late introduced once they had started together. But eventually, as I wrote above, Silo ‘quit’ Roy (to borrow a phrase from Brokeback Mountain) to pair up with a female.

Hmmmm…. I can’t leave this alone- its like picking a scab- sometimes you’ve just go to:

“there is NO WAY I can see how a behaviour that creates NO OFFSPRING can possibly be considered ‘natural’.”

So by your reckoning the only purpose for our existence on this planet is to procreate? Would you willingly dismiss hetero couples who for what ever reason don’t have children whether through choice or medical reasons as unnatural? Or is it the actual sexual acts of gay couples you are describing as unatural?

As for me- my relationship and sexuality are very natural and very healthy and I resent your implication that its otherwise. Because we are of the same sex and cannot reproduce are you suggesting homosexual relationships are less valid than heterosexual ones?

As for the penguins sexuality being used for political means by the gay lobby – why should it matter as there are plenty of other problems of injustice- gay people being beaten or put to death for their sexuality- for example- gay people not recognized as next of kin when their partner is ill or dies- these matters are more pressing.
It doesn’t matter either way what the penguins decide to do- it was just a mildy diverting cute story in a newspaper. Does a penguin’s sexual proclivities really affect your life so strongly ?!

I’m not amongst the militant gay campaigners that right wing people claim are trying to brainwash the world- (in fact how often do you really hear of these types of people except from the protests and shouts by the right wing anti gay mob?! ) But I really feel incredibly strongly by some of your insuations about MY lifestyle and that of other gay people. If you were aware of some of the hardship and suffering many people have gone through you wouldn’t make such down right stupid and glib comments. Just because people live differently to you- doesn’t make it unatural.

So by your reckoning the only purpose for our existence on this planet is to procreate? Would you willingly dismiss hetero couples who for what ever reason don’t have children whether through choice or medical reasons as unnatural? Or is it the actual sexual acts of gay couples you are describing as unatural?

You set up and attack a straw man target.

My argument is not about whether or not the point of life is to make copies of oneself ala Dawkin’s selfish gene.

My argument is simply whether or not homosexuality is a viable, beneficial and desirable natural result. Quite plainly, it is not – if everyone were purely homosexual, the species would be extinct in one generation.

Put it this way – can you possibly argue that the unstoppable urge to jump off a cliff to a screaming death before sexual maturity is a natural behaviour? The animal that does that would be kinda extinct. No offspring at all, you see.

Same thing with homosexuality – no offspring.

But since we’re discussing it… DUH, a perfectly healthy heterosexual couple of childbearing age would naturally be able to have offspring. That’s the way evolution or God made it.

(Whereas a perfectly healthy homosexual couple still cannot!)

As for the penguins sexuality being used for political means by the gay lobby – why should it matter as there are plenty of other problems of injustice- gay people being beaten or put to death for their sexuality- for example- gay people not recognized as next of kin when their partner is ill or dies- these matters are more pressing.

Yes, and there are plenty of other blogs about those issues. Go read them. Or better yet, why don’t YOU blog about them?

It doesn’t matter either way what the penguins decide to do- it was just a mildy diverting cute story in a newspaper. Does a penguin’s sexual proclivities really affect your life so strongly ?!

Again, says the person who’s commented THREE TIMES on this mildly diverting blog post about a mildly diverting story.

I felt like blogging about it – what, people can choose what gender they like to do, but can’t choose what hobby they like to pursue?

I’m not amongst the militant gay campaigners that right wing people claim are trying to brainwash the world- (in fact how often do you really hear of these types of people except from the protests and shouts by the right wing anti gay mob?! )

I’m kinda hearing about that a lot right now… And seeing it as they carry out their miltantness in broad daylight.

But ah… Those must be right wing anti gay mobbers pretending to be homosexual lobbyists to give them a bad name, no?

If you were aware of some of the hardship and suffering many people have gone through you wouldn’t make such down right stupid and glib comments. Just because people live differently to you- doesn’t make it unatural.

You’re right. Just because people live differently to me doesn’t make it ‘unatural’. It’s the fact that IT IS A REPRODUCTIVE, GENETIC AND SURVIVAL DEAD END that makes it ‘unatural’.

“But since we’re discussing it… DUH, a perfectly healthy heterosexual couple of childbearing age would naturally be able to have offspring. That’s the way evolution or God made it.

(Whereas a perfectly healthy homosexual couple still cannot!)”

Not necessarily so- in age of science. many straight couples cannot reproduce and many gay couples have children in families alternative to the supposed traditional model, whether through adoption, IVF or whatever.

And no you are right- I’ve not been following it- as I said- I’m not a militant homosexual campaigner and being British have only heard the slightest vaguest thing about proposition 8. America politics is something totally alien to me and not something I can affect to change even if I wanted to.
I’m just an average apathetic person who occasionally as in this case is moved to argue a point.
BTW couldn’t access the link you provided.
What I have heard about it though- and I’ve only heard one side I’ll grant you- is that in California it was finally agreed that the law would recognise same sex marriages and offer them equality with straight marriages- and now for whatever reason its been decided to reverse that decision. Personally I think this is a step backwards for The Land Of The Free. Civil Partnerships have been legal in my country and on a par with marriage (all but in name) for some time now and I am proud to live in a country where diversity is embraced and liberalism advances the rights of those previously opressed. I’m sure you are equally proud of your country and its history civil rights movements .

“It’s the fact that IT IS A REPRODUCTIVE, GENETIC AND SURVIVAL DEAD END that makes it ‘unatural’.”

Not so- how can it be that there are generations of gay people coming out of the closet all the time? This recurrence of homosexuality surely must prove that somewhere this kink of nature IS natural. The animal kingdom has rare occurrences of homosexuality- such as the bonobo chimps who engage in mutual masturbation- Of course this can’t be comapred with the human model as we ourselves have evolved completely away from nature and our very lives and cultures in every form are no longer “natural” BUT the way my brain is wired- I’ve been gay since birth- this IS natural to me.

And if you put a blog on the internet you leave yourself open to comment and can’t simply tell people to go elsewhere if they don’t like what they read.

I felt that your comments – in fact much of what you have said- was uneccesarily passive aggressive and (maybe unintentionally or perhaps intentionally?) homophobic. I was simply trying to put an alternative point of view across to try and address what I percieved as your bigotry.

Maybe I will decide to blog about social injustices against homosexuals, maybe I already do- you don’t know that- but then again there are people far more knowledgable and eloquent than I, with more time to kill who could do it justice. I don’t blog- tried it- got bored- not my cup of tea- dont see the point. I spend my spare time away from a computer as much as possible for my own reasons.

I won’t respond again as I said before sometimes arguing with some is like pissing in the wind but I would like to hope that you stop and consider alternative viewpoints before storming off a huge rant (We’ve all done it- I’m a reformed angry ranter). I can’t say as I always do but I try and see the other side of the argument and I just hope my penn’orth has made you think about another point of view and perhaps increase your understanding from a gay perspective.

Not necessarily so- in age of science. many straight couples cannot reproduce and many gay couples have children in families alternative to the supposed traditional model, whether through adoption, IVF or whatever.

Hmmhmm. Yes, I am sure that homosexual individuals managed to pass down their genes for homosexuality in the 300 million years of evolutionary history before the invention of IVF.

To put it bluntly and irreutably: Homosexual couples CANNOY HAVE CHILDREN unless they CHEAT, thru heterosex, stealing eggs, IVF, etc.

Not so- how can it be that there are generations of gay people coming out of the closet all the time? This recurrence of homosexuality surely must prove that somewhere this kink of nature IS natural. The animal kingdom has rare occurrences of homosexuality- such as the bonobo chimps who engage in mutual masturbation- Of course this can’t be comapred with the human model as we ourselves have evolved completely away from nature and our very lives and cultures in every form are no longer “natural” BUT the way my brain is wired- I’ve been gay since birth- this IS natural to me.

About as natural as terminal childhood cancer, or infertile gonads, or the unstoppable urge to bash the heads of your offspring in. Each results in NO OFFSPRING, NO PASSING DOWN OF GENES. Just like homosexuality in that respect (and that respect alone).

I think you got it right when you call it a ‘kink of nature’.

At the very most, I’ll give that homosexual genes are either mutant (spontaneously appear in offspring from heterosexual parents) or recessive (individual only shows homosexuality when no heterosexual genes are present, thus allowing genetically-dead-end DNA to propagate).

(Both terms are meant in their scientific context, and are not intended as slurs.)

But imagine a world full of pure 100% homosexual animals – the Earth would be devoid of animal life in one generation. It’s as simple as that to me.

I still cannot see how Darwin could ever look upon homosexuality and give it a big thumbs up as proof of his theory…

And if you put a blog on the internet you leave yourself open to comment and can’t simply tell people to go elsewhere if they don’t like what they read.

I merely suggested that you look elsewhere if you want a defense of homosexuals against whatever injustices you perceive them as having. This blog is for my personal views, which you are free to disagree with. So neither can you ask me to NOT blog on this topic but instead blog about more crucial things if you don’t like what I read, as you did earlier (which led to my ‘go read elsewhere’ remark).

I felt that your comments – in fact much of what you have said- was uneccesarily passive aggressive and (maybe unintentionally or perhaps intentionally?) homophobic. I was simply trying to put an alternative point of view across to try and address what I percieved as your bigotry.

I feel my post was very neutral and objective. I simply pointed out how using Roy & Silo as poster penguins for homosexuality is a flawed tactic. If that’s propaganda, then so is using penguins for sociopolitical ends in the first place. Just because I am not grovellingly pro-homosexuality, does not mean I am homophobic.

I won’t respond again as I said before sometimes arguing with some is like pissing in the wind but I would like to hope that you stop and consider alternative viewpoints before storming off a huge rant (We’ve all done it- I’m a reformed angry ranter). I can’t say as I always do but I try and see the other side of the argument and I just hope my penn’orth has made you think about another point of view and perhaps increase your understanding from a gay perspective.

Whereas for me, arguing helps me see if my views are solid or merely subjective. I’ve had my mind changed before by commentors who gave solid arguments and evidence.

wheres this so called gay propaganda you go on about- youve got quotes but dont say where from. AND btw some of yr comments can be perceived as homophobic….. do gays really STEAL eggs?!!!- for example.

Living in a very liberal city and working at a very liberal profession -My husband has many friends/clients who are homosexuals – one interesting thing he has noticed is most of them come from broken homes, or have had some type of sexual experience at a young age (either being molested or raped or exposed to the inappropriate sexual relations, etc.) These are all his personal observations of the MANY gays he has known thru the years – I haven’t looked up a study on it yet, but it would be interesting to find out what % of gays have those backgrounds.

I believe the “gay” gene is caused many times by upbringing and surroundings/environment as that has a very strong influence on a person… I know that it’s not 100% though, but very high %. If this weren’t the case, then why the heck would the gay community be trying so hard to get into the schools? This is the case, and their goal is to promote the gay lifestyle to the children thru teaching in the schools (that’s not from genes).

Also my husband worked with an organization to “heal” the gay person -a place where homosexuals who want to change and become free from the homosexual desires and lifestyles can go for help- so I believe while there are gay tendencies, being gay is a conscious choice -one chooses to make. LGBT don’t want it to be called a choice, but it is. They choose to live the lifestyle and to “feed”‘ their tendencies. The LGBT community of course hates these organizations that promote freedom from these desires/tendencies as LGBT would have you feed them and call in ‘natural’ and ‘healthy’.

Your argument about whether or not homosexuality is a viable, beneficial and desirable natural result and how you believe it is not because if everyone were purely homosexual, the species would be extinct in one generation. I believe is true. Libs don’t like to mix religion with politics – but however this is one of reasons God has commanded against homosexuality because it would result in the end of the human race if it were practiced strictly (without cheating) and this indeed goes against nature (as well as God’s plan)… to end the human race.

Another post I found interesting about the argument against homosexuality and how it goes against nature – is because the gay lifestyle in itself is actually killing off its members … now the LGBT community, of course don’t want you to hear statistics, but a higher % of gays living the lifestyle acquire HIV/AIDS then smoker acquire lung cancer…

– the poster goes on to state:.”… one third of gay men will contract HIV/AIDS during their lifetime, The infection rates are so high that one can more properly say that gay sex is an inherently unsafe activity. Advising men on how to have safe gay sex is, therefore, like advising people how to safely drive drunk, or how to safely smoke crack. The only responsible advice for gay people is not how to make such a dangerous activity safer, but that that they shouldn’t engage in this activity at all.

If any other activity, besides gay sex, led to such a high risk of infection of a deadly disease, there would be a huge campaign to get people to stop that activity. It would be made illegal. We would be bombarded by public service announcements like the “just say no” to drugs campaign. Just as “friends don’t let friends drive drunk,” people shouldn’t let anyone they care about participate in gay sex. But because of the powerful pro-gay lobby which strongly influences the mainstream media and has an even greater control over Hollywood, the truth about the huge risk of gay sex is ignored, and anyone who says otherwise is accused of being “homophobic.” Movies and TV shows now routinely depict the gay lifestyle as perfectly moral and no more dangerous to one’s health than the heterosexual lifestyle. Even the supposedly conservative Supreme Court has ruled that this dangerous sexual activity is a constitutionally protected right.”

So being gay is not only unnatural (as it will put an end to the human race in one generation)- it is also unhealthy (as it kills off approximately 1/3 of the gay population who lives the lifestyle).

aredvoice, I personally know an ex-gay who turned that way due to his upbringing – a lack of love from men. So he turned to men for love, but it was skewed into sexual love. He found Christ and was reformed (with great effort), and now runs a ministry to help homosexuals who WANT to change.

One of his cases was a man whose mother left the family when he was young. He turned homosexual out of hatred for women… Whereas his brother turned to dating older women to fill that empty space!

I agree with you… my husband as an interpreter was able to interpret for 2+ yrs for a gay man that was going through one of the Christians ministry (that are run by former homosexuals to help homosexuals who WANT to change as well). As an interpreter – he got to be “a fly on a wall” and learn about many people’s experiences, backgrounds, etc.
Over the years, he has had many homosexual clients and teams and has interpreted for the other pro-gay side as well (i.e. pro gay rallies, etc….) and has seen the side that doesn’t want to change – as well as learn about their experiences and background…
He has heard many stories/experiences personally and has come to the same conclusion as you – these homosexual tendencies are highly influenced by upbringing and environment and it is a choice to live the lifestyle. By living the lifestyle they are essentially ‘feeding” the tendencies – and same sex attraction becomes a stronger desire and more ingrained into them – however if one chooses there is also freedom from homosexual desires and behaviors through Christ.
Thanks for the blog and ministry website info – it’s good for people to see the whole truth of the matter.

the evidence you gave me is hardly of gay propaganda- you have a right wing blog with some hateful things said about people on it- another blog about harry potter which mentions the penguins and a news article that talks more about the right’s fear of these progressive and controversial childrens books. Still no evidence of the gay propagandists work- plenty of right wing propaganda!

I don’t understand why you people are so threatened by homosexuality. Homosexuality is not unhealthy not unnatural- if you are careful and practice safe sex. If you sleep around indiscriminately and take risks whatever your preference then you’re more likley to catch something hideous.

I’ve been happily in a same sex relationship for years and know plenty of same sex couples in the same boat. All healthy, happy with healthy and happy upbringings. A few abused and sad people with difficult pasts don’t necessarily explain why people are gay or straight- and I don’t hold with the opinion that you choose to be gay and can be cured of it. As a youth I KNEW I was gay and felt deeply ashamed as far as I knew I was the only person going through what I was going through and conned everyone for years into believing I was straight- dating several women but eventually it all clicked and I acknowledged to myself and eventually to others my homosexulaity and have been much happier for it since. If you live a lie it’ll come back and bite you. It was the thought of being shunned by my family and friends that kept me from being happy, in other words the attitudes of others.

NO one’s asking the homosexuals of the world to continue the human race or to have fun trying(!) Whether you like it or not ordinary families like mine sire gay children as well as straight- there isn’t always a bleak reason behind someone’s sexuality. HOw would it seem to you if it were the other way round and the Gay Church of blahdiblah analysed why you were straight and told you it was a flaw and could wiped away with training- it wouldn’t wash and I’m afraid doesn’t with me.

What should be addressed is perhaps the hundreds of children who self harm or commit suicide because they are afraid to come out or have experienced homophobic abuse at the hnads of peers or family with heavy expectations and prejudices.

You give a decent defense of the rights to lead a homosexual lifestyle, which I do not deny. But that is a straw man argument, as my post is wholly about how gay penguins do not a good example make, and about how homosexuality does not seem at all natural by the tenets of Darwinism.

You still do not in any way disprove, or even give an argument against, the original intent of my post.

Sure, human homosexuals don’t steal eggs… But may I ask, if two homosexuals cannot have children with one another, and therefore they do not pass on their genes… Where do baby homosexuals come from?

the same place straight babies come from! We don’t hatch from pods out in the desert! I was criticizing your and other comments which were very narrow minded and missed the bigger picture.

I don’t really care about the penguins sexuality- I’m not one for adopting a zoo animal as a mascot – if people want to identify somehow with a fish eating, flightless bird then fine. There are many examples of animals in the wild that have homosexual tendencies but the comparison between human and animal is pointless- but since you want proof:

“While homosexuality would appear to contradict evolutionary imperatives, scientists involved in the exhibition say it appears to do no harm and may actually help in some circumstances.

Sometimes a pair of male birds may rear eggs “donated” by a female.

In the case of flamingos, for instance, “two males can hold a much larger territory than a regular flamingo pair, thus more chicks can grow up”, the exhibition states. ”

so granted the plumbing can’t reproduce in the traiditonal sense but plenty of homosexuality in the animal kingdom- and presumably as there are still loads of animals left that engage in it- it isn’t putting the species at risk. BUT however the sexuality of human and penguin are totally different and goes without saying completely different culturally! Without doing research for all I know the flmaingoes and the penguins and the chimps might be expected to behave in this way! Anway- who knows and who really cares?!

Well I dont really care about those using a couple of penguins as a mascot- thats their opinion and choice but people will tend to identify with the strangest or in this case cutest things.

Where do homosexual babies come from? What are you on about?! Where every other baby comes from! We homosexuals don’t spore or hatch out in the desert! THe fact is if you look at the animals that have homosexual tendencies you must realise that their species has produced certain behavioural patterns that have evolved over thousands of years and their natures have not in anyway ruined their rates of procreation.

Other examples of animals with gay tendencies:
bonobo chimps, bottle nosed dolphins, flamingos, buffalo…..
all of which it seems use sex to placate agressive situations, tribe bonding, partner up for life or just simply for fun!

I point you to this quote in the bbc article:
“While homosexuality would appear to contradict evolutionary imperatives, scientists involved in the exhibition say it appears to do no harm and may actually help in some circumstances.

Sometimes a pair of male birds may rear eggs “donated” by a female.

In the case of flamingos, for instance, “two males can hold a much larger territory than a regular flamingo pair, thus more chicks can grow up”, the exhibition states”

so you see theres more to it than what goes where and whether or not the act can produce offspring. My point is that the breeders in the traditional sense through heterosexual intercourse will always produce homosexuals. the animal kingdom has it in various forms for various reasons- as mentioned in the articles above.

Animals seem to get on with it- maybe because they don’t judge the actions of one another as right or wrong.

Ah, but how do homosexual genes get passed on if the homosexual males themselves do not have offspring?

They have to ‘cheat’ in order to pass on their genes for homosexuality, or else they are actually bisexual, or else the homosexual genes are a result of spontaneous mutation, or else homosexuality is LEARNED rather than inborn.

(For the last hypothesis, it would help explain why Tango grew up lesbian when she had no genetic relation to her two homosexual ‘parents’.)

“so you see theres more to it than what goes where and whether or not the act can produce offspring. My point is that the breeders in the traditional sense through heterosexual intercourse will always produce homosexuals.”

And there is no evidence homosexuality is caused by genetics or through upbringing or hormones in the womb…. its all supposition and there’s no definitive answer as to where it comes from or why it happens.

this argument keeps going round in circles. fact is – no definitive answer- its prevalent throughout the animal kingdom and will continue to be in it diverse forms- time to accept that and move on… or read a huge 500 page tome on the subject and come back to us with the answer.

[Mr. Garrison’s classroom. The kids chat away as Token enters]
Mr. Garrison: Okay, chlidren. Let’s take our seats. We have something very important to discuss. Due to recent events around the country I’ve been instructed to teach you all about sexual harassment in school.
Kyle: About what?
Mr. Garrison: Now, does anybody know what sexual harassment means? [Cartman raises his hand] Yes, Eric?
Cartman: When you’re trying to have intercourse with a lady friend, and some other guy comes up and tickles your balls from behind.
Mr. Garrison: …No, Eric! That’s not what I’m talking about! The school board has sent over a special guest to teach us all about sexual harassment in schools. Please welcome Petey, the Sexual Harassment Panda.

Well, I don’t know anything about Roy and Silo, and yes, maybe they grew up in a unnatural environment and that forced them to become gay. But, that’s not 100% sure, cause, it has been proved that wild penguins (and many other animals, including Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and many others) living in their natural environment, develop gay preferences, and choose to live with a same sex partner willingly, so, this would totally disprove the 1st point:

1) Roy and Silo were kept in an unnatural environment, namely a zoo enclosure with no females. Still having the instincts for pairing up, Roy and Silo took the only choice afforded them – another male. It’s about as natural and free-choice as the situational homosexuality of prison shower sex. (See point 5 also.)

Therefore, it’s not true that the influence of gay parents, make gay kids. Because it’s a natural phenomena.

Hmmm…all very interesting comments. Why has it only been one-sided for each commentator? I mean, why do some have to argue for only heterosexuality and others only argue for homosexuality? Is it even possible to think that ALL people CAN be bisexual by nature? Because of reproduction (i.e. we think of male and female copulation as natural), social “rules” (later of course) were created based on this particular notion of producing offspring which in turn determines what we can accept as normal or not. Would it even be possible that we ALL have choices to be either gay or straight? Yes, I’m including you heterosexuals too! lol. Hetero’s choosing to be hetero’s and gays who choose to be gays and secretly not really realizing that they just might be bisexual altogether. Yes, that’s what I’m asking. Can both so-called “heterosexuals” and “homosexuals” actually be bisexual and not be strictly one or the other?

Anyone here following me? I’m sorry if I don’t sound scientific enough nor do I have some medical degree or whatever crap you want to bring up, but just thinking based on what you guys just wrote up there. Very interesting, everyone!

Hmmm…maybe I should rephrase and say “neutral” (until some sort of social development happen later in life that influences which sex they prefer to just be with), if not “bisexual?” These things are possible, aren’t they? Who’s to say that we were “meant” to be heterosexual or even homosexual? Yeah, I realize reproduction is mainly the reason why those who are against homosexuality will say that only heterosexuality is best.

How do you define heterosexuality? Do you mean for reproduction purposes only (as oppose to companionship/love)?

I understand your position, Vanndy. Yes, some people can be bisexual – the term being defined as preferring sexual contact with both genders. Probably most people have some tendency to enjoy sexual contact with either gender, but I believe very few have that as an overwhelming preference – even fewer than the percentage of people who overwhelmingly prefer sexual contact with the same gender (homosexuals).

To clarify, hetero or homo or bi is all a matter of general preference, not just an occassional experimentation.

Right now the ‘in thing’ among homosexuals and their supporters is to claim that sexual preference is a wholly genetically determined thing… That is, we CANNOT CHOOSE whether we are attracted to, because we are born a certain way and are stuck with it. If this is actually false – if we can actually choose whether we are heterosexual or homosexual – then opposition to ‘altering’ of sexual preference would have a much weaker basis.

You’re right in that there are a higher percentage that TEND to choose the opposite sex, but maybe that has more to do with the fact that they can reproduce along with receiving great sexual pleasure–an amazing combo, by the way! lol.

Most people tend to choose the easier lifestyle. It’s something they can handle and very much understand. What works is what they’re going to stick with. That’s human nature for ya!

There are many folks who are strongly against the “other” preference (or lifestyle or whatever politically correct term you want to use). I think homosexuals use genetics (i.e. preference cannot be altered) as a defense because to many folks it seems like nature makes a very powerful argument, which I don’t agree. I think more people need to re-examine the nature argument closely. In my opinion, I don’t think that argument works anymore for BOTH sides. Human beings are very complex, even more so than other non-human animals. Actually, I think non-human animals have it easy.

Oh and another thing, do you mind if I copy and post your ‘Roy & Silo’ blog on my own blog? Just need your permission. I’m sure my college friends would like to read what your wrote.

it took me a very long time to get through all of those comments. It’s a confusing subject and there’s nothing solid on either of the sides. But i’m sure that i’m bisexual. I don’t know why or how, but that’s just the way it is. I have never been raped or touched in a bad way. My parents are straight. Nobody in my whole family is LGBT or at least has not come out about it. I think there are different levels of bisexuality. Some people may not be attracted to the same sex at all. Some people may be attracted to the same sex a little or a lot. Anyway… Go to youtube. Type in ”gay education” its one of those videos. It’s animated, I think it’s funny. BTW there is nothing solid on god existing either, so why do so many people act as if this were fact and they lived beside jesus and were best friends??. But there is no way GLBT is not a choice? I thought god loves everyone. He makes everyone who they are. In the bible it says to treat others as you would yourself. But I’m going to burn in an eturnal hell fire?

There are several theories as to how homosexuality could be genetically transmitted. Here’s the three most common.

1) It could have ‘hybrid vigor,’ where when it is homozygous (two copies of the ‘gay gene’) it causes homosexuality, an evolutionary dead end, but when it is heterozygous (one copy of the ‘gay gene’) it gives a reproductive advantage. In this case, the gene persists in the gene pool.

2) It could give an advantage in the opposite sex. So a woman with the male ‘gay gene’ has an advantage, while a male with the male ‘gay gene’ is gay. The opposite would be true for female homosexuality. This would also cause the gene to persist.

3) Kin selection. If one member of a family is homosexual, they could still help their relatives raise children, and so pass on their genes through them. Some studies on humans seem to suggest this might be the answer, as mothers who have already had several sons are more likely to give birth to a gay son.

Homosexual behavior (though not exclusive homosexuality) is extremely widespread in nature, especially in social animals. It is used to make bonds between individuals who then help each other survive. Note that one of our closest genetic relatives, the Bonobo, is exclusively bisexual. The poster who commented that we might all be bisexual by nature might not be far off.

Why are you so obsessed with this topic? You suggest that others must be so vehement in their arguments since they must be homosexual. What’s your story? Are you one of these ‘converted’ homosexuals? And before you say that you’re not that obsessed, take a count of how many times you’ve replied to comments.

You’ve gone to great lengths to try to prove that homosexuality is not genetic, and further prove that it must be a learned behavior. Where are the studies that support that belief? You’re only support of that argument seems to be your own logic, and this penguin story (with Tango ending up as a lesbian).

The truth is, you have no idea what causes homosexuality, and any attempt you make to prove otherwise is useless, and you know it. If you’re so frustrated with certain gay groups trying to link homosexuality with genetics, at least have a modicum of understanding as to why that argument would be positive to gay people (other than the absurd reasons spouted by aredvoice). It was the majority, the powerful, heterosexual majority that for years held onto the belief that homosexuality was a conscious choice, that could, of course, be changed. They’ve never been able to prove this, and at some point, many left behind this completely illogical belief. Can you imagine, Scott, what it would be like to be told that there is something wrong with you that needs to be changed?

You also seem to believe in ‘conversion’ (based on your response to aredvoice), even though you haven’t a clue as to why there are homosexuals in the first place, and how they got to be that way. It’s amazing that these pseudo therapists can ‘cure’ people, when they don’t even know the cause of what they’re trying to cure.

Since it’s clear that no one knows the causes of homosexuality, and that there are very evident reasons why gays might hope for a proof of a genetic link, why would you want to deny them of that possibility? And further, and most importantly, why is it so important for you to try to prove otherwise? What is the cause of your obsession on the matter?

Why are you so obsessed with this topic? You suggest that others must be so vehement in their arguments since they must be homosexual. What’s your story? Are you one of these ‘converted’ homosexuals? And before you say that you’re not that obsessed, take a count of how many times you’ve replied to comments.

I could engage with you through intellectual discourse but the constructions of your arguments are so outlandish they simply don’t merit investing that sort of energy. Why dignify your “intellectualism”? So instead I’ll delight in the visceral pleasure of commenting that you’re a bigoted idiot.

Scott Thong is a homophobe and a bigot no doubt about that. I am familiar with these ex-gay ministries which are run by Christian fundamental groups.
They are mostly Bible based and extremely homophobic and dangerous to the psyche of these poor mis-informed gay men who have internalized their own homophobia. One poor soul was so distraught (a member of one of these groups) he shred his penis with a razor blade.

The agenda of these groups is to convince the gay man that he has a choice and then to impose on him/her the straight (Normal lifestyle). They talk about gay triggers like male porn and avoiding people, places & things that could trigger them into homosexual behavior.

The cure they talk about is nothing more than REPRESSION!! PERIOD. The attraction to the same sex never leaves but it can be repressed with scripture, support and downright brainwashing. You show me one man from these groups that claims to be saved from his homosexuality and I will show you a very repressed homophobic gay man who is in total denial as to his sexual orientation.

Its homophobes like Scott that continue to make Gay people feel less than, inadequate, UNNATURAL and deviant. It’s also people like Scott that keep these groups in business

I am a Christian and believer in Jesus Christ who never taught anything homophobic as a matter of fact He said let him that is without sin cast the first stone. “judge not lest ye be judged”

It was Paul the Apostle who was the homophobe and where the bible bangers get their ammunition against alternative lifestyles. It’s all there in Romans chapter 1. It was also Paul’s personal opinion not God’s.
I’ll get a shit load of flak on that one from the bible belt.

By the way there are 1500 species in the animal kingdom that exhibit homosexual and bi-sexual behavior. So much for Paul’s argument that it.s a sin against nature.

I am a Christian and believer in Jesus Christ who never taught anything homophobic as a matter of fact He said let him that is without sin cast the first stone. “judge not lest ye be judged”

Many people quote this verse without thinking about the loophole included in it. I am ready to be judged, and you have already judged me (and harshly) in your comment, so therefore I am not afraid to judge.

As for what Jesus said:

‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ – Mark 10:6-9

And what Jesus did NOT say:

‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife or husband, and the two will become one flesh.’ – Not-Mark 10

Do explain this instance of Jesus neglecting to overturn the religious bias against homosexuality, o Christian believer in Jesus Christ.

But not everyone is gay/lesbian…so hypotheticals are null and void I think. People like to say “If we were all homosexuals, we wouldn’t ‘replenish’ the earth with more people.” However, if that were the case, there would be other variables that might change along with that hypothetical situation. If homosexuals were not able to reproduce the way heterosexuals can reproduce now, then what makes you think that if God made everyone 100% homosexual there wouldn’t be another type of balancing (‘replenishing’) done by Him (i.e. instead of birthing babies biologically like we do now, there would be another form of reproducing babies?) We all keep saying “If this, if that…” What about WHAT IS and WHAT CAN be done? Gays CAN have babies, it STILL can be biological if they’d like. It’s just that it’s not done through sexual intercourse. Look, for both sides, no matter what we say, we try to look for reasons to back up our dislikes and likes. For those who really dislike homosexuality or against it, they will find reasons to argue against it. Same thing with those who support it, they will find reasons to argue for it. So, we can argue until the oceans dry up but I don’t think everyone will ever agree. Find a common ground, guys…

then what makes you think that if God made everyone 100% homosexual there wouldn’t be another type of balancing (’replenishing’) done by Him (i.e. instead of birthing babies biologically like we do now, there would be another form of reproducing babies?)

Wait, I thought you just said ‘hypotheticals are null and void’?

The point I am trying to raise is, God didn’t make homosexuality the base plan.

And that’s another thing. If homosexuality is natural and caused by genes and also sexuality cannot be chosen, then how does the homosexual gene survive past even one generation (i.e. no offspring)?

I’m saying it to counter what you said, because if mine is null and void, then yours would be too. Duh! God this, God that…blah blah blah. It’s not like someone will come down and say “you are right!” Like I said, whatever you don’t like (or like), you’ll find ways and reasons to support it. Can’t actually bring “God” down to prove it. Sorry the Bible or whatever won’t suffice.

No wonder religious nuts gets so much flak. Let it go, guys. It isn’t a big deal. Live and let live.

As for the genetics argument, someone posted a comment about that and it’s a good argument, I suppose.

1) It could have ‘hybrid vigor,’ where when it is homozygous (two copies of the ‘gay gene’) it causes homosexuality, an evolutionary dead end, but when it is heterozygous (one copy of the ‘gay gene’) it gives a reproductive advantage. In this case, the gene persists in the gene pool.

2) It could give an advantage in the opposite sex. So a woman with the male ‘gay gene’ has an advantage, while a male with the male ‘gay gene’ is gay. The opposite would be true for female homosexuality. This would also cause the gene to persist.

As for the genetics argument, someone posted a comment about that and it’s a good argument, I suppose.

1) It could have ‘hybrid vigor,’ where when it is homozygous (two copies of the ‘gay gene’) it causes homosexuality, an evolutionary dead end, but when it is heterozygous (one copy of the ‘gay gene’) it gives a reproductive advantage. In this case, the gene persists in the gene pool.

2) It could give an advantage in the opposite sex. So a woman with the male ‘gay gene’ has an advantage, while a male with the male ‘gay gene’ is gay. The opposite would be true for female homosexuality. This would also cause the gene to persist.

No wonder religious nuts gets so much flak. Let it go, guys. It isn’t a big deal. Live and let live.

Dude, I was ‘debating’ with Rick specifically on what the Bible does or does not say. Whether what the Bible says is actually true and valid in real life does not matter in the context of that discussion, because we were debating what Christianity teaches – which is supposed to be based on what the Bible says.

We’re arguing over these things because it means something to us – we each want to adhere to the most correct understanding as possible, because it matters in our lives. For me, what is and is not true and correct about my faith is a critical factor that influences who I am, the very life philosophy I believe in, and what I do. It is something important that we hold to.

OK. I apologize for insulting your Christian faith–both of you guys. However, for me, religion is not the only thing that makes the world go round. Consider all the good and the bad in this world, and I don’t think those who are homosexuals are the biggest threat or will end anything really. Plus, I’d like to give life and humanity a lot more faith than any religious texts says.

So, fine. Apologies to both of you. Please continue your ‘debate’ on what the Bible says.

If Rick ever reappears, sure we will. Or more likely, I’ll be making solid arguments while he’ll be calling me a homophobe, bigot and hater.

Btw, religion is not the only thing that makes the world go round for me either. It just plays a bigger part in my life than for you.

Neither do I rank homosexuality very high up on the scale of apocalyptic threats to humanity and all existence. You may have gotten that impression from this post and the comments on this post, but this is just one post and a few comments out of the 1,309 posts and 9,621 comments on my blog. (Now 9,622.)

You may find that I have a lot of other points of interest flying about this blog.

Rick on the other hand… We’ll have to see if his is a one-issue party.

Okay, first of all, the penguins were not isolated, they were living with several females, but even so they wanted to be together.
Second, they weren’t forced to move in together, nor make a nest or care for the egg, they did so, because they wanted to, there was no human hand involved in their actions.
Third, by posting that stupid image of a penguin talking to a male Tango just shows off how lazy you were and obviously didn’t try to research a little, Tango is the couple’s FEMALE DAUGHTER.
Finally, there was one bitchy female penguin that came along and made them fight, is that what heterosexuality represents for you?
So rightheousness is the same as hatin everything you don’t agree with?
I once heard, You should love thy neighbor, or at least leave him fvcking alone, it’s not your bloody problem what he or she does with her butt.

Actually, a human hand was involved in procuring an egg for Roy and Silo to hatch. Otherwise, they would either be sadly warming a lifeless rock, or else they might try and steal other couples’ eggs instead! (See top of this page for that.)

Good point on the cartoon, which no one else seemed to notice… Or maybe no one else is actually petty enough to think the cartoonist didn’t know that when he drew the cartoon!

But even on this point, your line of attack is faulty… As Tango also also grew up to be ‘homosexual’, a fact which I used to demolish the ‘sexuality is 100% genetic, no upbringing influence’ argument above. So the cartoon could just as accurately be depicting Tango and her female partner!

FAIL!

Your outburst on that point also shows how lazy you are, as anyone who actually reads my post in full would note how I make clear that Tango is the former-couple’s (non-genetic) offspring:

The egg was successfully hatched, and the healthy female chick was named Tango. Tango grew up to adulthood and is now in a homosexual relationship with another female penguin.

“Tango grew up to be a well-adjusted individual, fully accepting her parents’ lifestyle choice and even embracing it by pairing with a female!”

Tango did not inherit any ‘gay genes’ from her adoptive parents, but grew up continually exposed to the homosexual lifestyle of Roy and Silo.

But then, that’s typical of trolls… Find one point (even an imaginary one) that they don’t like, ignore the rest of the post and head straight for the comments box to flame-argue their case.

And where in my entire post do I hate or bash homosexuality? Isn’t the entire focus on my post simply to point out the poor assumptions made in using Roy and Silo as poster penguins for the gay movement?

You tell me when, one single instance, where I proclaimed my self-righteousness or spewed hate at homosexuals. If you can do so, I will formally apologize for it, as I have done so publicly in the past on this very blog.

By the way… I once heard, You should love thy neighbor, or at least don’t go around looking for blogs to get incensed by. It’s not like I came to yoru doorstep or inbox and shoved my blogging in your face, hmm? (If anything, you came guns blazing onto my blog!)

Interesting blog and discussions and stuff.
I personally support gay relationships although I’m straight.
People have free will and can think and feel for themselves and maybe I’m naive or a hippie or something but I think love in itself is natural. To me I accept gays just as much as I accept straights because to me it all comes down to love. Whether it be in people or animals.
I dont think its anyone’s right to pass judgment over something like that.
Live and let live.

Thanks for the link, but it basically says the same thing as the original article I cited – that Roy & Silo refused females who were offered to them (likely once they were found to be paired to each other), but not whether or not females were available when they began their pairing.

I too accept the right of people to think and feel whatever they want. I simply disagree that homosexuality is either natural, or approved by God. What is so hard for homosexuals to accept about my personal opinion?

It is very possible that we all are naturally bi-sexual or neutral (i.e. sexual orientation) BUT we ALL ‘choose’ (i.e. lifestyle) to pair with someone based on what society says the way it should be–a general agreement (i.e. love+sex = babies, should be the ‘correct’ way for humans in society?). Forget about the penguins and all of that. They’re so overrated, haha! Aren’t we supposed to focus on humans and OUR nature–not necessarily other animals’ nature? I know these animals could help explain bits and pieces of things we humans do, but I really don’t think it will prove completely what is ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’ for us humans regarding homosexuality. Only some things.

Another way to look at this issue:

Couldn’t homosexuality and heterosexuality also be defined as ‘lifestyles’ instead? You choose to pair with either someone of the same sex or opposite sex. Someone’s ‘natural’ sexual orientation doesn’t necessarily = lifestyle, but who really wants to deny their ‘natural’ orientation? If you’re ‘naturally’ gay, you probably don’t want to live a straight lifestyle (unless forced to by society, family, etc). If you’re ‘naturally’ straight, you probably don’t want to live a gay lifestyle.

“Someone’s ‘natural’ sexual orientation doesn’t necessarily = lifestyle, but who really wants to deny their ‘natural’ orientation? If you’re ‘naturally’ gay, you probably don’t want to live a straight lifestyle (unless forced to by society, family, etc). If you’re ‘naturally’ straight, you probably don’t want to live a gay lifestyle.”

What I meant by this is that sexual orientation isn’t the definition or synonymous of lifestyle and vice versa. Just to be clear before there is confusion with that statement. lol

I’m a big fan of definitions. If your definition of “natural”–within the context of sexual orientation–is essentially “capable of contributing to the reproduction of the human race,” then yes, heterosexual physical unions are, by this definition, natural, and homosexual unions are not*; and I don’t feel that this definition somehow discredits infertile heterosexuals since the issue in question is not necessarily individual ability to conceive, birth, and rear children, but rather the generalized ability of each sexual orientation to do so. Assuming that all of the above is valid, then you’re correct in your assertions that homosexuality is unnatural.

As for whether it’s accepted by God, I’m neither particularly religious nor extensively educated in theology, so I’ll take your word for it that He doesn’t approve of homosexuality.

At this point, having conceded that by what I believe are your definitions (and I urge you to please correct me if I’m wrong) homosexuality is both unnatural and immoral, I’d like to address the other point you’ve made in this post not about the naturalness or morality of homosexuality, but about the validity or lack thereof of homosexuality’s supposed genetic roots.

It is entirely possible, from my admittedly limited understanding of genetics, for two brown-eyed parents to give birth to a blue-eyed child via a recessive gene that each parent is carrying, this gene being “trumped,” so to speak, by a dominant gene in each of the parents–but if the child inherits the recessive genes of both parents, then that child will gain the recessive trait (in this case, blue eyes). Although there is no “gay gene” discovered as yet, your point “II” presupposes, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality is “all in the genes;” therefore, I’ll roll with this same presupposition, again for the sole sake of argument: Recessive genes may account for the reason why “gay genetics” will not disappear from the gene pool, since it is technically possible for several generations of recessive-carriers who are not gay to pass their recessive genes through other recessive-carries who are also not gay. Thus, no homosexual would have to “cheat” and “mate” with the opposite sex for the homosexual gene to be propagated, quite naturally even by your definition, within the gene pool.

Of course, no such gene has been found yet and no one really knows why people are gay, so basically everything anyone could possibly write on the subject is nothing more than conjecture, myself included. It could be genes, hormones, environment, or any combination of those things; however, from a Christian point of view, the “cause” of gayness isn’t a relevant factor, so the ultimate question is whether the Christian point of view is, in fact, the correct one–and that’s a whole separate issue.

As for point “V,” I personally would refrain from using any specific, individual instance of sexual behaviour, either animal or human, as a “guide” for or parallel to generalized human sexual behaviour–otherwise, you could point to whatever non-mainstream sexual act or orientation you wanted, not just homosexuality, which includes everything from oral sex to bisexuality to the psychological complexities of BDSM, and (without evidence) assert that these things must somehow be embraced and/or enjoyed by society at large. An individual instance of something does not automatically, in and of itself, make that thing either acceptable for a minority or a standard for the majority, nor does an individual instance of something immediately negate other instances of something else. Thus, pointing to the specific instance of these two supposedly “gay” penguins “turning straight” doesn’t necessarily negate the homosexuality of some humans.

If I didn’t respond to a specific point, then (I’m fairly certain) I either agree with it or have covered my response to it here. For the record, although it holds no relevance in the discussion, I happen to be a lesbian and a supporter of gay rights.

* Regardless of what one may or may not believe about relative or absolute morality, the fact remains that there are several definitions amongst many people for terms like “natural,” so for the purpose of this comment, I’ve used what I believe is Mr. Thong’s. In instances where definitions aren’t pre-negotiated, I feel that it is only respectful and convenient to use whichever definition is first supplied.

I don’t feel that this definition somehow discredits infertile heterosexuals since the issue in question is not necessarily individual ability to conceive, birth, and rear children, but rather the generalized ability of each sexual orientation to do so. Assuming that all of the above is valid, then you’re correct in your assertions that homosexuality is unnatural. – Miranda

Correct, that is my assumption – that viable heterosexual reproduction is the norm and infertility among heterosexual pairings is the exception. A commentor had attacked on that point before, arguing that if reproductive capability is what counts, then the Bible should condemn infertile women.

but about the validity or lack thereof of homosexuality’s supposed genetic roots.

I have hinted at it before, but just try saying it out loud: Genes for homosexuality are recessive!

That it merely sounds like an insult would draw more flame comments than my usual fare ;>

That being said, advocates of homosexuality will instead try and argue that genes for homosexuality improve survival chances – they claim that such genes make the individual more able and willing to care for their siblings’ offspring, as they have no offspring of their own to take up their time. Thus the homosexual genes pass on to the next generation because the homosexual individual’s siblings also carry the genes, and their offspring survive.

however, from a Christian point of view, the “cause” of gayness isn’t a relevant factor, so the ultimate question is whether the Christian point of view is, in fact, the correct one–and that’s a whole separate issue.

In a way, it ultimately isn’t – whether you were born into a long line of serial killers, or were an orphan raised by psychos, doesn’t give you license to commit murder. But in other ways, it does bear some relevance – the Real Love Ministry founder believes, from personal experience and the cases he has seen, that environment plays the major role. Thus his focus is focused on ‘repairing’ that aspect instead of accepting that it is something unchangeable.

As for point “V,” I personally would refrain from using any specific, individual instance of sexual behaviour, either animal or human, as a “guide” for or parallel to generalized human sexual behaviour

Totally agreed! The entire reason I posted on this topic is in reaction to penguins being used as celebrity examples for the homosexual movement.

So yes, my example of a ‘gay’ penguin turning ‘straight’ is actually a dud. But so is the whole example of ‘gay’ penguins in the first place!

For the record, although it holds no relevance in the discussion, I happen to be a lesbian and a supporter of gay rights.

And while I may not appear it (certainly none of the angry commentors who think I’m a raving bigot seem to notice), I actually support the right of individuals to practise their own preferences within the limits of the law and without harm to others. In that respect, I am quite humanist in my worldview.

I do not even argue against homosexual marriage, an issue I have so far chosen to remain neutral on. I merely argue, as I have all along, that JudeoChristianity does not accept homosexuality as permitted by YHWH. Is that so controversial?

(On the issue of homosexual marriage, you may see why I choose to keep out of it – I am a ‘fundie Christian neo-con’, yet do not believe that homosexuals should be denied rights. How would that fare in an election campaign? Palin may be a precedent, as she is a staunch Christian yet opposed the removal of same-sex partner benefits.)

but who really wants to deny their ‘natural’ orientation? If you’re ‘naturally’ gay, you probably don’t want to live a straight lifestyle (unless forced to by society, family, etc). If you’re ‘naturally’ straight, you probably don’t want to live a gay lifestyle. – Avee

Yes, true. But what do you mean by ‘natural’ orientation – is orientation determined solely by genetic factors, or does environmental influence play a role? If orientation is more affected by human interference, is it still considered ‘natural’ orientation?

I think it depends on the individual on how he/she defines “natural.” That’s why I put them in quotes because naturalness is up to debate all the time. I am just saying that people who feel that that is who they are (whether it’s “really” natural or not depends on who you ask), they will choose to go with it. Why deny it if it’s not exactly a bad thing? I don’t see a problem with homosexuals. They don’t affect me or my life. I never really cared about ‘naturalness’ at least when it comes to gays/lesbians. It just comes down to mutual respect for other humans. Sounds cheesy, but just my two cents. Everyone’s a critic, huh…

At this point, Avee, I think it’s just a matter of personal opinion about which is more detrimental:

A) The potential punishment/blasphemy of defying the law of God in being and/or acting as a homosexual; or

B) The potential distress of attempting to change what may be an innate and permanent aspect of one’s psychological well-being, especially if God does, in fact, not exist.

Of course, the issue is that the world is not in agreement about whether God actually exists, and nor is the world in agreement about whether homosexuality is either innate or permanent.

Christians, both gay and straight, will (more than likely) consider A to be the more ominous threat, whilst non-Christians are more likely to vote in favour of B being most dangerous. To ask “Why deny it if it’s not exactly a bad thing?” is to refrain from acknowledging that for some people, homosexuality *is* exactly a bad thing; from that point of view, homosexuals may not be doing harm to others, but they’re, allegedly, doing harm to themselves, which is why they ought to be granted legal rights and basic respect in that sense (after all, we can drink as much alcohol as we want legally, right?) but still considered “unnatural” and “immoral”–at least, that’s how I understand it.

@Scott:

I don’t believe that your views are controversial, at least not from a self-contained perspective. Others will inevitably disagree with you, but you have demonstrated that you can make a sensible point without degrading others; it’s only when people who don’t agree with you and can’t find the words to express their disagreement calmly and logically that you get flamed.

I also understand why you’d stay out of the gay marriage debate. Hell, you stand a pretty good chance of being flamed from both sides! That being said, while Sarah Palin may or may not have set a precedent for conservative attitudes toward homosexual rights, there is a vast difference between opposing the removal of same-sex benefits and supporting gay marriage, which Palin has stated she does not, and nor has she proposed an alternative equalized legal institution that would include both heterosexuals and homosexuals with marriage being a voluntary, church-sanctioned and -regulated matter (to the best of my current knowledge).

Palin does stand a far better chance of running for office than me, and even liberal Obama has not gone as far as legalizing homosexual marriage, so her position is a sensible one if she wants to ride the Coservative sentiment without appearing to be overly anti-homosexual.

“IV. Point III raises a related question – If upbringing and environment can influence a child’s sexuality, what does it say about homosexual marriages and adoption and raising of children in a homosexual household? If genes are not the sole factor, then this is one way to ‘propagate’ homosexuality.”

“The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way,” she tells WebMD. “In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.”

“In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”

If you define ‘natural’ to mean ‘free of human intervention’, then yes, you can say that some animals engage in same-sex activities without human influence.

However, the ‘natural’ I am asking about is ‘the way it’s supposed to be’. That is, sure some two-headed snakes appear in nature without exposure to human-produced toxic waste. But are two heads the way snakes are supposed to be?

That depends on the context in which you’re using that phrase. Do you mean expected behavior or required behavior? – Ron

I meant that two males mating produce no offspring, thus dooming their genes (which carry all the predisposition towards homosexuality, some would say) not to be passed on to future generations. Isn’t this the antithesis of Darwinism?

Yes, but a heterosexual couple could have offspring if they wanted to, and among animals contraception isn’t really practised. Fertility is the norm and infertility is the exception, whereas for homosexual pairings infertility is 1 out of 1 the norm.

For the record (not sure if you’ve read it before), I don’t take a stance on the legal aspects of homosexual marriage among humans. My view is merely that it is proscribed by the Bible, and that it does not seem to be easy to propagate genetically (if indeed it is wholly genetically determined).

If I were President and banned gay marriage, wouldn’t that be based on my religious beliefs, and therefore forcing my religion onto unwilling others? But then again, isn’t any policy forcing one’s beliefs (government run healthcare, military intervention overseas, etc) onto about a 50% unwilling populace? Is there really much difference between policy based on religious convictions and policy based on non-religious philosophical beliefs?

My philosophy is live and let live. So long as my beliefs and interpersonal relationships don’t impinge upon the life and liberty of others, they should concern no one but myself. If everyone followed this simple concept there would be far less strife in the world.

“Is there really much difference between policy based on religious convictions and policy based on non-religious philosophical beliefs?”

There is no dying need in homosexuality ln that is you don’t die from lack of that as you would with lack of food. It’s enough that they’re not being persecuted for that. The rest, the gays have to work it out with their society, not bulldoze their demands the way some do.

Ooh, the big man knows some critical thinking jargon. Heard of ad hominem? Which you and Simon Thong seem to employ alot in your replies. Admittedly, though, Simon more so than yourself.

Alternatively, heard of generalising an argument on a specific case? Which is what your blog seems to hinge on – there are more gay penguins than these two, and not all of them cut and run at the first opportunity. There’s also more animals than penguins – dolphins, for example, are a much smarter creature, which reguarly seems to exhibit homosexual behaviours. The majority of primate species, as well. Surely, to promote an argument which states that homosexuality may not be completely beneficial to the continuation of a species, which is the mildest view I can state, you should use animals that are closer in behaviour to humans. For example, although homosexuality exists often in nature, it is among animals who mate for reasons other than procreation, such as dolphins, or humans, that homosexuality occurs the most.

Although I do not agree with all of your views, which is simply natural, given that you are an (may I assume) American male of some age, and I am a British nineteen year old female, the use of the penguins does not seem to hold up in either argument. Perhaps the pro-homosexuality argument would hinge slightly more on them being base animals, but overall the use of less intelligent beings to promote something that fairly intelligent species do is fallacious. Humans are not simple creatures, and I think that you would need less of an education in genetics (which is nothing to be sniffed at), and more of a complete understanding of the human brain.

Also, stating that if everyone suffered from homosexuality, then the human race would be extint in one generation is true but irrelevant. As you can see from the world around you (including yourself), not everyone is homosexual. Therefore the argument doesn’t apply as a premise to support yours.

God, I was only going to comment a little! I eagerly wait your reply, seeing as you seem to be able to construct a decent argument – a rarity on the Internet these days

‘Straw man’ is found often enough these days to have entered the common vocabulary. Well, at least you noted that the whole point of my over-the-top post was to ridicule the over-the-top parading of one gay and one formerly-gay/bisexual penguin as poster children of the homosexual movement.

My premise of 100% homosexuality resulting in single-generation extinction of course does not hold water, as it is an exaggeration and extreme example. People could have heterosexual relations purely for procreation, for example, as many homosexual couples do with surrogates in order to have children genetically related to one of the couple.

However, the point of my conjecture was to point out that pure, unwavering homosexuality does not seem to be a viable genetic trait – simply because the genes coding for this trait cannot propagate themselves. Therefore, one of the following must apply:

1) The genes coding for homosexuality are only partially dominant (i.e. as strong as those for heterosexuality), or else recessive (i.e. if any heterosexual genes are present, no homosexuality is shown), when determining phenotype (i.e. observable behaviour). This means that non-homosexuals will be carrying genes for homosexuality that do not show up in their behaviour.

2) Homosexuality is not a purely genetically-determined trait, but rather influenced by enviromental stimulus at least partially. This is my own interpretation (and one that is currently considered politically incorrect by many on the pro-homosexuality side, as it means that people’s sexual preferences can be modified).

As for decent arguments, you just have to look in the right places on the Net. Ace of Spades HQ has quite well written pieces, one of which I feature here.

And finally, on ad hominems, I try to not make them if possible, but I suppose it is a somewhat subjective matter. Cite me a few examples of where you feel I made such attacks, and I will study them and see where I can improve.

(That goes for Ron and Robert too, cite me some of my own vitriol so I know what I should avoid in future.)

This is bullsh*t. I’m straight, but totally supportive of the lgbt community, and anyone with half a brain knows homosexuality is completely natural. It IS NOT A CHOICE. What kind of idiot would CHOOSE to be ridiculed by homophobes like you? What kind of person would choose a ‘lifestyle’ that gives them less legal rights, that gets them kicked out of their parents homes?

anyone with half a brain knows homosexuality is completely natural. It IS NOT A CHOICE. – Sam

Wow, an ad hominem and a straw man combined in one sentence!

My position is not that ‘homosexuality is a 100% free-will conscious choice’ as you allege. Rather, it is that non-genetic factors can influence sexual preference – such as being ‘groomed’ by an older homosexual, or having one’s first sexual experiences carried out among rubber-boots causing a rubber-boot fetish in adulthood.

To deny any and all experential/environmental influences on sexuality is the non-straw man extreme that many proponents of homosexuality support – including yourself, apparently.

Nothing is completely natural, or completely a choice. If psychology teaches us anything, it is that choices are complex as people are complex. If I quoted you, Sam, I would say, “anyone with half a brain” would know that. But I won’t quote you as I think that what you wanted to express so strongly came out differently. I see where you’re coming from, though: unless you have a lot of gays supporting you, it wouldn’t be easy to come out of the closet and face all that hostile reaction.

Homosexuality AND heterosexuality are both choices. The lifestyles are up to you. Society just approves heterosexuality more so than homosexuality. If you want to talk about biology, then that’s another story. However, in terms of love, we can’t define that in biological terms, so would this also be consider “natural” for human beings whether or not he or she is straight?

1) Don’t confuse love and lust. I can love my dad and my brother and my son innocently.

2) Actually, scientists have defined love biologically (since secularists must deny any existence of spirit or free will, so they try hard to pin everything down to evolutionary behaviour). To them, it’s just hormones released to give good feelings and encourage caring behaviour, in order to propagate and sustain offspring. Hence even in that sense, homosexual ‘love’ would fail.

Well explain why the baby, Tango ( A Female ), decided to pair up with another female? I think that shows that Penguins are a perfect example of hour homosexuality is uncontrollable. You sir, are a d*ck and you need accept others. Homophobia is no different than racism; you dislike a person because of something they can not control. I hope your car flips over with you in it.

Think about it: Her two male ‘parents’ were at the time homosexual, however they did not pass any genes to Tango. Yet Tango ended up homosexual too.

Wouldn’t this seem to show that the behaviour of others infouenced Tango’s sexual choice? Doesn’t this run opposite of the standard ‘homosexuality is genetic and uncontrollable’ argument? Doesn’t this seem to show that environment (i.e. having to homosexual role models) influences sexual choice, not genetics automatically determining sexual no-choice? Wouldn’t this seem to mean that sexuality is controllable insofar as the surroundings can make an individual gay or straight?

And where, pray tell, do I show any dislike for homosexuals in my post? Do I call them names or wish they die in car accidents? Show me where.

You sir, are the d*ck and -ist here. As well as having a very poor, backfiring argument. If you’re the best debator that the homosexual lobby has going for them, no wonder a majority oppose and vote against homosexual marriage.

The very existence of the human soul and concept of human morality ought to be enough proof that the Sodomites are making false equivalencies. If a tiger decided to murder an entire town, does that make murder okay? If all the ants in a commune work for the queen bee, does that mean that humans ought to submit to Stalin? Furthermore, humans have incentives to do good or bad; as animals are soulless and will have no rewards in the afterlife, I see little reason why anyone should use their behavior as an exemplar for our own.

Seems like all the homophobes got their panties in a twist because a couple of gay penguins successfully managed to rear a chick after the hetero penguins failed… and everyone lived happily ever after… except the haters.

Thanks for the info regarding that particular secularist view regarding love and biology, but love doesn’t necessarily mean that you must produce children. That view is flawed then.

Homosexuals can STILL produce–just not biologically with each other. They can still produce with his/her sperm or eggs via someone else (reproductive technology, surrogacy, etc), so they are able to “propagate and sustain offspring” if they choose to do so. It just takes a bit more effort than heterosexual couples.

Homosexuals can STILL produce–just not biologically with each other. They can still produce with his/her sperm or eggs via someone else (reproductive technology, surrogacy, etc), so they are able to “propagate and sustain offspring” if they choose to do so. It just takes a bit more effort than heterosexual couples. – Vee

But doesn’t that defeat the purpose, and show that pure homosexuality is not a naturally viable reproductive strategy?

I’m against it. Liberals do not understand the point of marriage. The point of marriage is not for society to understand the strong feelings people have for one another. It is to raise children. It’s to harness men’s natural promiscuity and to direct it toward one woman and one set of children.

It was actually homosexuals or their advocates who first started the penguin/other animals comparison thing in order to justify how ‘homosexuality is natural’.

She’s bit of a nutcase. I wouldn’t want to use her as reliable source for anything. Why would you listen to a nutcase? She’s practically the female version of Rush Limbaugh. Gays/lesbians can raise children. Her argument about how marriage was created sounds primitive, but since there’s an evolution of how man can be in a monogamous relationship, why can’t there be an evolution in relationships between people in general? What’s the harm in allowing marriage to “harness” all humans’ natural promiscuity and direct it toward one partner, even if children aren’t naturally produced the same way with one man and one woman in a relationship?

As for the reproduction for LGBT folks, I guess gays/lesbians are above science, haha! It’s all spiritual? (That’s another story!) Let’s give a toast to that! You can argue that pure homosexuality is not naturally viable reproductively, but since we’re humans and our human nature is more than just plain eggs and sperm, we can do anything (should be ethical) so long we can still continue to make life.

Heterosexuals use animals to make comparisons as well, then.

I’ve seen all the comments on both sides of the debate on whether or not it’s natural, and everyone’s got good points. However, what it should come down to is that if two consenting adults (let’s not bring animals or kids into this) want to be in a relationship together and love each other, then this nature debate shouldn’t matter much in the end.

Scott, you give very good points and I commend you on your argument against homosexuality being natural, but I just wanted to express my opinion that same-sex marriage or relationships are as viable as non-homosexual relationships reproductively in this day-and-age. Maybe, I just don’t want to view relationships in a primitive way. Just my thoughts.

Yeah I guess I people are above animals (like I mention in my post), but at the same time there are those using animals as examples for human behaviour to follow, so I just used their very example to counter-argue.

Often I extend the concepts put forth by same-sex advocates to other, less currently-acceptable social behaviours. For example, what do you think of:

If it’s consensual on all sides and everyone enjoys it and no one gets hurt, are we being bigots to condemn incest and bestiality as ‘wrong’?

What’s so nutty about Coulter and Rush?

Sure they say some critical or even rude things every now and then, but are their arguments off? For example, if one guy says “Murder is bad!” and another says “Murder is the despicable pastime of insolent sociopathic thumbsuckers”, the only difference is in the way they say it – the claim they are making is the same.

Same goes for Coulter. She mocks and uses tons of sarcasm, and is definitely politically incorrect on purpose, but I find her actual arguments to be sensible. (Examples here.)

So anything in particular you can cite they’ve said that is nutty? Or just the general perception that they are, from what you hear others saying?

I don’t know about the maternal grandmother issue (sounds weird), but the ‘consensual’ sex with a dog? I don’t think dogs can speak nor fully understand what’s really going on. They don’t know what’s right and wrong–they’re dogs!

We’re not bigots to condemn incest and bestiality because I suppose you’d have to get into the psychologolocial issue with those folks. I’m not an expert in this area but I wouldn’t group homosexuality in the same category as incest and bestiality at all.

Also, how about other cultures that allow 40-year-old men to marry 11- or 12-year old girls? What do you think about that?

Anne Coulter’s nutty in the way she says things. Her statements do seems sensible somewhat but she and Rush sets us back 30, 40 years.

Like I said, I have no expertise in certain areas of these issues but just thinking about why some people are so against homosexuality. It intrigues me. Ok, anyway….more thoughts on this incest and bestiality issue and why I feel homosexuality cannot be classified in the same category.

Incest affects more than those two people involved in their “relationship.” Biologically, if the son and the grandmother, for example, have a child; that child will likely be mentally retarded or have other severe birth defects. It is wrong in that it hurts another human being. However, isn’t there a law that says cousins can marry as long as it’s distant right?

Bestiality is wrong because the person can claim he had “consensual” sex with the animal, but how can we get a clear answer from the animal, hu? Animals can’t really determine what’s going on or have the rationale that they are an animal and that particular human doing certain acts with them is perhaps an animal like them or maybe they’re not. It’s abuse.

Homosexuality affects nobody but the two people involved; the acts you listed have negative affects on more people or even animals.

I’ve always had the thought that as long as what you do has no negative consequences on anybody else, then it is much harder to be considered “bad.”

Positive side of homosexuality? 1. at least its with a human.
Negative side of incest? 1. the human is a blood relative. Birth defects.
Negative side of bestiality? 1. it’s not human. It’s abuse.
Negative side of homosexuality? 1. it’s the inappropriate human, biologically (physically).

Why shouldn’t incest be too private to ban like gay sex?

http://www.slate.com/id/2081904/
The easy answer—that incest causes birth defects—won’t cut it. Birth defects could be prevented by extending to sibling marriage the rule that five states already apply to cousin marriage: You can do it if you furnish proof of infertility or are presumptively too old to procreate. If you’re in one of those categories, why should the state prohibit you from marrying your sibling?

Ok, here are some thoughts on incest. I suppose people have an issue about sex–not necessarily marriage. If they were sterilized/use contraceptives or never can procreate, by law, they should be able to marry their sibling. I personally wouldn’t do that but I suppose it would be be fine as long as they’re not hurting anyone or affecting someone or something else. I never really gave it much thought before to be honest. Genetics is the reason why people find incest disgusting or something to be a bigot about.

So how can we put homosexuality with incest? It’s not even a biological problem in terms of hurting a child or whatever. It’s just that two same-sex people cannot produce the same way heterosexual couples can.

Also, how about other cultures that allow 40-year-old men to marry 11- or 12-year old girls? What do you think about that?

40 year old marrying young girls is wrong in my book. I’m not a moral relativist or multicultural submitter, I’m an unapologetic ‘religious fundie bigot’ so my excuse for opposing things like pedophilia, bestiality and incest is my religious beliefs.

Anne Coulter’s nutty in the way she says things. Her statements do seems sensible somewhat but she and Rush sets us back 30, 40 years.

Yes, but ‘forward’ isn’t always going in the right direction. Obama recently used the example of ‘D’ to go forward and ‘R’ to go back – but no one can argue that the Bush years were worse than the Obama years, especially with the latter’s higher unemployment, higher debt, more terror attacks etc. in mind!

(Michelle Malkin says the same things straightforward and politely, and people still call her a hater, b*tch and so forth.)

Well, I like to say that I’m a moderate just because I don’t want us to go backwards too far, but forwards slowly instead (and not in a complete Obama way mind you). I’m more like ‘we need progress but we need time as well.’ I’m not an Obama supporter particularly, but giving him a chance since he’s already in office.

As for Obama’s “forwardness,” I think he’s trying to make some changes that are unpopular with the people right now, but what do you expect him to do at this point? He is taking a pile of crap that Bush left behind practically. Whether his plans/policies will work out or not, we don’t know yet. It will show in the next few years, don’t you think? It’s sort of like a huge earthquake now, but we’ll see the results after it all settles.

I disagree with the ‘Blame Bush’ mentality. All of Bush’s policies were in plain sight in 2008, if Obama wasn’t sure he could handle it then why did he even run for President at that time? Might as well have left it to McCain or Hillary who have decades more experience.

Also, Obama’s response to the Bush legacy is to make things worse. Obama took Bush’s parting 400 billion deficit and topped it up into a 1.5 trillion deficit – all without spurring the economy the way Bush’s tax cuts did (which are about to expire pending inaction by Obama).

He took Afghanistan and managed to increase the American troops death toll so that more troops have died on Obama’s 18 months than the entirety of Bush’s 7 years of war involvement.

He took a softer, gentler, more understanding reach-out-to Islam, and the response is more terror attacks on American soil in his 2 years than ‘insensitive’ Bush’s 7 years post-911.

And he’s already played more golf in less than 2 years than Bush did in 8 years.

This is not what is called responsible, let alone visionary, leadership.

We don’t need to wait another 6-8 years, these 2 years have already shown the effect of liberal policies. The earthquake analogy fits well – when the dust settles, all we’ll see is a wreck!

Any wonder majorities of ordinary Americans oppose Obamacare, think the Stimulus failed, support Arizona’s tough immigration laws, oppose the Ground Zero mosque, and oppose same-sex marriage – all issues which Obama and the Dems take the opposite stance on? More and more are identifying as Republican in protest of Obama’s direction. Even Dems miss Bush these days!

Oh, and here are the colourful charts to prove that Obama and the Dems are making things far worse than Bush ever could have:

And his response? “It’s Bush’s fault (except for the successful Iraq surge which I originally pooh-poohed) and the GOP can’t have the keys back ‘cos they’ll reverse us to the Bush era.”

What do I expect Obama to do? Listen to the American people instead of thinking of them as stupid, uneducated racists. Pass sweeping tax cuts to boost businesses and employment. Cancel whatever remains of the Stimulus. Repeal Obamacare. Open up oil drilling nationwide. Push ineffective ‘green jobs’ onto the backburner. Secure the border with Mexico. Stop hypothesizing and for once, admit his stand on issues like a man.

Like magic, his approval rating will rise from the negative 22 it is currently at, the economy will finally recover, and Obama may even win a second term and leave office as ‘The man who saved America’ instead of ‘The man who actually made Bush look competent’.

So how can we put homosexuality with incest? It’s not even a biological problem in terms of hurting a child or whatever.

I disagree. If evolution, survival of the fittest and natural selection are correct, then how could 2-father or 2-mother families be as ‘fit’ as mother-father families when it comes to raising children? Nature evolved human social groups along the heterosexual line for a reason – it simply provides the best care for a child (let alone the fact that homosexual couples can’t even propagate their DNA without ‘cheating’).

I don’t deny the heterosexual basis. My stance has always been that relationships evolve just as humans have evolved. What I don’t agree with is that everything we do in this life, especially now, is all about the primitive or plain old egg and sperm (biology).

Let’s just put the heterosexual mating/relationship as the foundation if you want. Then, the everything else is ‘built’ or created from there, even homosexual relationships. With gay/lesbian people specifically, I don’t merely see them in the realm of biology, genetics, and all of those things you’ve thrown out because they’re a lot easier to understand because of what science has taught us. I don’t want to get into the whole spiritual stuff, because it’ll sound all fluffy; but I think homosexuals are on a different level than the so-called “physically natural heterosexuals.”

Not saying that gays/lesbians are better (or worse) though. I don’t know how to put it, except the way some people view ghosts or spirits on this physical plane. You can’t really explain all of that through science. I mean, you hear how people can detect spirits by their energy with their fancy equipments, how those things are affected by the magnetic fields, and blah blah blah. Whatever. That’s if anyone is a believer.

Seems to me you should approve of homosexual relationships. The more out there, the less likely that a person with a tendency to pass on whatever genes — if they exist — cause a tendency toward homosexuality will have offspring. The fewer homosexuals, the smaller your problem, right?

I don’t understand what the problem is. I never have. Teach your children that homosexuality is wrong. That’s okay with me. Teach them to ignore science. That’s okay with me. But teaching them to be nasty to others who don’t believe the same as you, that p*sses me off.

A couple in a gay relationship isn’t hurting you. At most they are hurting themselves (not that I believe that). Just leave them alone.

(And, no, I’m not gay. But trampling on someone’s rights because of your religion is wrong.)

Scott just stated that he is actually neutral on the political issue regarding same-sex marriage/unions. However, in regard to his religious faith, he believes it’s wrong. A person can actually have those two beliefs you know? I personally don’t believe there’s a moral issue with it nor political, but he’s entitled to his religious belief as you and I are entitled to ours.

His killing terrorists and freeing Iraqis? Yeah, we like him. His open borders and beginner-socialist tendencies? Not so much.

I don’t understand what the problem is. I never have. Teach your children that homosexuality is wrong. That’s okay with me. Teach them to ignore science. That’s okay with me. But teaching them to be nasty to others who don’t believe the same as you, that p*sses me off.

Maybe you’re talking about other people opposed to homosexuality in general here. But as for me myself, show me where I teach anyone ‘to be nasty to others who don’t believe the same as you’.

In fact, if you look at the comments on this page (including your own). The majority of the hate and insults come from homosexuality supporters, directed at me and homosexuality opponents.

(And, no, I’m not gay. But trampling on someone’s rights because of your religion is wrong.)

Scott just stated that he is actually neutral on the political issue regarding same-sex marriage/unions. However, in regard to his religious faith, he believes it’s wrong. A person can actually have those two beliefs you know? – Vee

Yeah, like Vee says. It’s not like I’m promoting shariah or anything, where religion = law for everyone. Or atheistic communism, where no religion = law for everyone.

I did do a post on whether a religious leader is forcing his religion on others by passing laws based on his beliefs. My conclusion was that religious beliefs are on par with any other beliefs, and bully to you if you don’t like it. Just look at how the Tea Parties are responding to Obama’s beliefs about economic theory.

I mean, compare the two side by side. Let’s say President Palin bans gay marriage nationwide. That’s ‘trampling on the rights’ of homosexuals to be treated equally under the law as other people, right?

But now take President Obama passing stimulus after bailout after government expansion after Obamacare after record deficit. Isn’t that ‘trampling on the rights’ of small government advocates to not have huge taxes and wasteful, inefficient spending imposed on their livelihoods?

So when it comes down to grit, whatever laws are passed, the beliefs of someone will be trampled on.

Wow, this page shows many fundamental misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions.

Regarding this particular situation, Roy and Silo were introduced as potential mates for an unbonded female. Your statement about having no available female options for mating is absolutely incorrect. They were actually separated from the group when first at the zoo and placed in an area with the single female in hopes that a relationship would form between the female and either Roy or Silo. Roy and Silo chose each other despite her presence.

Regarding homosexual behavior in animals, for most species, the individuals who engage in this behavior are BISEXUAL, so they do also engage in heterosexual behavior and can reproduce. Therefore, the issue concerning the passing along of genetic material is irrelevant if we consider the likely truth that animals, like humans, engage in sexual activities for a range of reasons (only some procreation-related). The bisexuality is also reflected in the subsequent relationship of one of these male penguins with a female. He was a bisexual penguin within a homosexual pairing and he is now a bisexual penguin within a heterosexual pairing.

Finally, no behavioral scientist will ever tell you that any complex behavior such as sexual behavior is ALL in the genes or ALL in the environment.

Also, for further clarification, homosexuality in animals is not seen only in zoos. It is a phenomenon that has been documented in nearly 500 animal species, and an enormous number of these observations have been made within the natural habitats of the animals. Some species are specially equipped, so to speak, for homosexual behaviors. Male orangutans, for instance, can retract their penis into their bodies, creating a sort of orifice that other males can penetrate.

Regarding this particular situation, Roy and Silo were introduced as potential mates for an unbonded female. Your statement about having no available female options for mating is absolutely incorrect. They were actually separated from the group when first at the zoo and placed in an area with the single female in hopes that a relationship would form between the female and either Roy or Silo. Roy and Silo chose each other despite her presence.

Regarding homosexual behavior in animals, for most species, the individuals who engage in this behavior are BISEXUAL, so they do also engage in heterosexual behavior and can reproduce.

Good point, which is why I always load my argument dice with the phrase ‘PURELY homosexual preference’ leading to self-extinction.

Finally, no behavioral scientist will ever tell you that any complex behavior such as sexual behavior is ALL in the genes or ALL in the environment.

This is my own personal stand as well. But If I say that in public, I’ll be called a homophobic, Bible-thumping fundie-extremist hater who ignores ‘proven science’ in my quest to ‘de-gay-ize’ homosexuals through cruel, manipulative and ultimately ineffective ‘therapy’. Srsly, politically incorrect is just the tip of the iceberg.

Homosexuality advocates currently accept nothing short of ‘it’s totally genetic and so 100% not my choice and unchangeable’, perhaps in order to gain the same level of immunity as race-grievance mongers, pre-empt any discussion of changing sexual orientation, and shoot down conservative concerns that exposing children to homosexuality will influence their future sexual preferences. What do you think about it?

Also, for further clarification, homosexuality in animals is not seen only in zoos. It is a phenomenon that has been documented in nearly 500 animal species, and an enormous number of these observations have been made within the natural habitats of the animals.

No one argued that it’s not seen in the wild, but given that one of my points was that Roy and Silo were in an artificially segregated habitat.

Some species are specially equipped, so to speak, for homosexual behaviors. Male orangutans, for instance, can retract their penis into their bodies, creating a sort of orifice that other males can penetrate.

And female hyenas have similar ‘equipment’. And male humans have prostate glands.

Of course, one could argue that the mere fact that part A fits into part B is proof enough if one were so inclined. Ignoring the fact that part B has a totally different, ‘out’ function.

I remembered seeing an interview on youtube with the zookeeper in charge of the Central Park Zoo chinstrap penguin exhibit. I found the video for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UibmZXbiI3Y. It doesn’t get much more reliable than from the zookeeper’s mouth.

I’m still not clear about how statements about “purely homosexual preference” are at all related to this story.

I think my bottom line suggestions are that the video link will significantly weaken your “argument 1.” #2 is not an actual argument, but an attempt at emotional persuasion. #3 has nothing to do with most animal homosexual behavior, especially not that of Roy and Silo, since they both will likely mate with females at some point and have the chance to pass along their genes (and the size of the human population is such that we don’t need every single person procreating anyway). #5 has nothing to do with much of anything really, unless you’re trying to assert that no people are actually homosexual. Finally #4 is odd. I’m not sure how Tango would have been able to extrapolate the abstract concept of “same sex pairing” and somehow learn to apply it to herself. Social learning in animals entails FAR more straightforward mimicking that this and I doubt Tango had the abstract reasoning abilities to be able to make this leap.

Finally, it’s clear that you’re trying to associate your perceived unnaturalness of homosexuality with your traditional views on human partnering. Whether traditionalists have associated homosexuality with “natural” vs. “unnatural” behavior, though, has shifted over time. During WW-II, Hitler’s regime recognized homosexuality as a fully natural thing. However, the likened homosexual individuals with animals and treated them as such (see discussion in Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D.) Calling homosexuality natural or unnatural has no inherent moral implications, but attributing moral implications to what is “natural” or “unnatural” can be dangerous and should be avoided (again, using the acts of Hitler’s regime as an example).

And I forgot to answer your direct question about my thoughts regarding changing sexual orientation. I don’t view it as something that needs changing. If accepting homosexuality were to result in increased homosexual preferences in the newer generations (which I don’t really think it will), that would be fine with me. Homosexuality is not associated with lesser happiness or life satisfaction. The suffering associated with homosexuality is typically a result of harassment by those with some moral opposition based on religious texts that are likely using the term homosexuality to refer to same sex pedophilic behavior. I know the jury is still out on that one, but I think we should also consider the many, many times the Bible references the goodness in helping others vs. the 3 or so times it briefly mentions homosexuality.

> His killing terrorists and freeing Iraqis? Yeah, we like him. His open borders and beginner-socialist tendencies? Not so much.

My point was more that your using Obama’s rating means very little to anyone except people who create those numbers. As you did, speak out about the specific things you disagree with, but leave ratings out of it.

You say:

I mean, compare the two side by side. Let’s say President Palin bans gay marriage nationwide. That’s ‘trampling on the rights’ of homosexuals to be treated equally under the law as other people, right?

But now take President Obama passing stimulus after bailout after government expansion after Obamacare after record deficit. Isn’t that ‘trampling on the rights’ of small government advocates to not have huge taxes and wasteful, inefficient spending imposed on their livelihoods?

—

These are *very* different things, so different I’m not sure how they can be compared at all.

Marriage and who you marry is a personal decision.

Taxes, what and how much, are considered to be a public duty, enforced by law, and payment is not a personal decision.

See the difference? You have the right to get married or not get married. You do not have a right to choose not to pay taxes. (Or rather, you do, but you may face consequences if you do.)

Yes, I think that it is violating the rights of homosexuals to not alloy them to marry. I see it as no different than forbidding marriage between an African-American and a Caucasian.

No I don’t think taxing all people who are “small government advocates” with the same rules, regardless of race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation is violating their rights.

I’m not against your believing whatever you choose to believe. I’m not against you speaking those beliefs. What I’ll fight against are people who try to deny rights to anyone for the color of their skin, whether they are man or woman, whether they are hetero or homosexual, or because they don’t believe what another person believes. If you don’t fit into one of those categories, I’m not fighting against you, but I may be speaking out against your beliefs.

My point was more that your using Obama’s rating means very little to anyone except people who create those numbers. As you did, speak out about the specific things you disagree with, but leave ratings out of it. – Sean

The last is really cute. Smoking is bad because it has a high chance of causing lung cancer right? Well gay sex has the highest chance of spreading HIV, 60 times greater! So if smoking is banned for your own and public safety (secondhand smoke), shouldn’t the same apply to gay sex?

Especially if, as you say, sexual preference is partly influenced by the environment. If so, suddenly a person’s sexual choices become a matter of public importance – what with HIV rates and children being influenced to engage in anal sex and such. Now is it in the same realm as taxes?

I remembered seeing an interview on youtube with the zookeeper in charge of the Central Park Zoo chinstrap penguin exhibit. I found the video for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UibmZXbiI3Y. It doesn’t get much more reliable than from the zookeeper’s mouth.

Thanks Melkuphd, at least that is finally cleared up. I’ll add it into my post above.

I maintain my argument #2, because Roy & Silo are used as an emotional argument by advocates of homosexuality as well. “Aww how cute and touching!” and such.

I maintain #3, because it’s still a minus point for advocates of homosexuality – genes influencing homosexual preference cannot be passed on unless they ‘cheat’ and do it with a female. At worst, this point becomes an argument for bisexuality over homosexuality.

#4 is used to point out the flaw in assuming that sexual preference is 100% genetically determined. I find it odd that reports on how wonderful it is that Tango grew up homosexual don’t realize that she has no genetic relation to her homosexual parents.

#5 makes me think you have the wrong gist of my post – I am explaining why using Roy & Silo as a fairytale of homosexual love is flawed. Point #5 is like adding an epilogue scene to Disney films where the Princess divorces the Prince in a flurry of litigation and accusations of wild affairs!

I would say in short, my post is as solid as is needed to debunk the very un-solid argument that two temporarily gay penguins are a good example for human homosexuals.

On natural/unnatural, my meaning is rather on whether such behaviour can propagate through natural selection. Put it this way: Mutant two headed snakes appear in the wild without any human interference. Is it ‘natural’?

Yes, in the sense that it happened in nature far from human influence. No, in the sense that snakes are NOT usually supposed to be two-headed.

No apply to homosexuality between animals in the wild. Natural? Yes, they do it without human prompting. No, because such matings serve no propagative purpose.

Homosexuality is not associated with lesser happiness or life satisfaction. The suffering associated with homosexuality is typically a result of harassment by those with some moral opposition based on religious texts that are likely using the term homosexuality to refer to same sex pedophilic behavior.

I disagree, as there are few polls or studies on the matter and any reports from those polled are highly likely to be slanted in order not to make their own lifestyle choice look bad. Anecodotal reports point to far more prelavent instances of multiple partners and moving on to new partners.

Not good parenting, I hope. Is promoting one’s agenda really worth fast forwarding the growing up process so prematurely?

Compare if anyone tried to push heterosexual sex acts onto schoolchildren and toddlers. “Hey little Suzie, you’re twelve now, let me demonstrate to you how a man ‘loves’ a woman. You’ll get an A plus!” Arrest and scandal much?

Quite simply, I don’t see how one can argue that billions of years of evolution favouring male+female family units counts for nothing.

I know the jury is still out on that one, but I think we should also consider the many, many times the Bible references the goodness in helping others vs. the 3 or so times it briefly mentions homosexuality.

Besides, the Bible is big on righteousness as well. People always forget that judgment and punishment are constant themes in Christianity, and “Love God” comes before “Love mankind” in Jesus’ example.

Anyway, my main push is that Christians can’t accept homosexuality as God-allowed, and homosexuality doesn’t work out in a natural selection sense. The socio-aspects I don’t really argue on. If I were President, I’d avoid the issue entirely to focus on jobs, energy, security and the economy. Once Americans believe that I know what I’m doing, they might warm to my views on social issues as well without me having to enact a single law. Free will.

Health care: I’ve already explained this one, and I suspect it’s the only one of the above that you can actually point to that is actually a firm stand taken by the democrats. Of the others, about the worst you can say is that one man used “home schoolers” in conjunction with other right leaning groups such as the NRA.

If you have links to a reputable news source that show that any of the above are part of an official policy by the democrats, please show them to me.

If you’ve been observant, you’ll notice I left one out of your list. I did it intentionally, because this one is probably indicative of the others:

– Choice of car colour (black to be banned in California)

This is simply not true, was never true, and it was never a policy or in consideration for a potential policy for democrats. A report was issued by the California Air Resource Board (CARB) that pointed out that since black cars absorb more light, they are harder to keep cool and might produce more carbon emissions. That initial report did not suggest banning back cars, though it did mark them as “an issue”. A later statement by CARB specifically said that black cars were not going to be banned in California.

CARB is not the democratic party. Regardless of who appointed the members, they do not represent the democratic party, and it cannot be said that any policy they implement is a policy of the democratic party.

So, first, banning black cars was never anybody’s policy, second, they were not and will not be banned, and third — the real kicker — this is all 18 months old. Seems like you could’ve gotten better information in the last 1.5 years.

You say:

The last is really cute. Smoking is bad because it has a high chance of causing lung cancer right? Well gay sex has the highest chance of spreading HIV, 60 times greater! So if smoking is banned for your own and public safety (secondhand smoke), shouldn’t the same apply to gay sex?

—

If you’ve got a link to a reputable news source saying that banning smoking is an official democratic policy, please post it.

But let’s talk about this, shall we?

Second hand smoke is known to be a health risk. Studies aren’t clear about just how bad a health risk it is, but it is clearly a health risk. To separate smoking and non-smoking patrons of an establishment, that establishment must have separate, enclosed, rooms with separate and disjunct air conditioning and heating capabilities. Most business don’t want to provide those things, they’re too expensive. And the problem doesn’t stop with the patrons of the establishment; what about the employees who are forced to work in secondhand smoke? Without the (non-federal, btw) bans on indoor smoking in public places, many people would be subjected to that secondhand smoke, and some would have adverse reactions.

Okay, now lets talk about HIV. It’s deadly, certainly. But it’s also rather difficult to acquire. It isn’t transferred by airborn means — you can’t get it by sitting next to someone who has it. You can’t get it by kissing — even deep kissing. No, in fact there are really only three ways to become infected with HIV: a unborn child can get it from an infected mother, you can get it from receiving contaminated blood (extremely rare in the US now), or you can get it from having unprotected sex with someone who already has the disease.

Unless you have unprotected sex with multiple partners as a regular part of your life, you are much more likely — by orders of magnitude — to be affected by secondhand smoke than by HIV.

BTW, I said nothing about environment potentially causing people to be gay. Didn’t say anything about the causes, because I don’t think we know enough about them.

These weren’t directed at me, but just for fun:

Anecodotal reports point to far more prelavent instances of multiple partners and moving on to new partners.

—

Er, yeah, you say “anecdotal”, which really means no solid evidence. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. That’s real. We live in a society in which the culture accepts serial monogamy as normal and right, and there’s a large portion of the young adults in this society that attach little significance to sex. Like it or not, it is what is happening.

But really, it was these I wanted to comment on:

Folsom Street Kiddy Fashion

Jennings Personally Pushed Books That Encouraged Children to Meet Adults at Gay Bars For Sex

Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Promoted “Fisting” to Children (Video)

—

The first, the Kiddy Fashion. So what? People who are in general somewhat out of the mainstream might be purchasing clothes that you don’t like. At least they aren’t exhibiting the kids. No, instead this:

is called perfectly okay — yet these are very young girls wearing what in many cases are very obviously clothing designed to be sexual in nature.

Further, at least the kids have clothes on. I’d rather see a child with any clothes on then being dragged around in public in only a diaper. And that I’ve seen far too many times to count.

Now about Jennings. The claim is that he recommended a book that encourages children to meet strangers in bars for sex. The book in question is “One Teenager In Ten” and is a collection of essays by teenagers about coming out as being gay. It is entirely possible that in one of the essays, one of the writers says something to that effect. I don’t know. What I do know is that the book might well be worth reading even if it does do exactly what you are claiming. Books can be worthwhile even when they contain things that we don’t agree with. And for someone who is gay and is having problems with being gay, the book might well be very helpful to them.

The promoting fisting thing? The guy answered a frank question with a frank and humorous answer. I can’t watch the video, it’s been pulled, but if the site you point to is accurate, then he certainly didn’t “promote” fisting, at best, by not being disapproving he condoned it. But he was asked the question “What is fisting?” It’s not as if he brought it up initially. So, once given the question, what would you have had him do? Ignore it? Talk down to the student and say she was too young to know? Either one would have been stupid. He did the right thing, he answered the question honestly. To do anything else would have been to lose the respect of the kids to whom he was talking, and in losing their respect, he would lose the good he was trying to do.

Well from your comment above, I can see you’re much more serious than I first gave you credit for. I regret my quick-draw, snarkish response which left plenty of weak points to counter. Let’s see how I can respond now, then.

None of those cases are about the effect of ratings, but about how an Obama endorsement is sometimes detrimental to some candiates.

Ratings of course do not usually CAUSE a candidate to be unpopular. They merely SHOW that a candidate is already unpopular.

But in this case, Dems read the numbers and conclude that they do not want to risk alienating more than 50% of voters. So the ratings become the cause.

If you have links to a reputable news source that show that any of the above are part of an official policy by the democrats, please show them to me.

Yes, they are not ‘official’ Dem policies as laid out in a black and white document. But really, can you argue that they are carrying out such policies despite a lack of stated intent? Surely you are streetwise enough to differentiate between ‘say’ and ‘do’?

Put it this way – Obama said no death panels, no abortion funding, you get to keep yoru doctor, lowers costs to consumers with Obamacare. That’s what he said – but that’s not what it does.

Similarly, Republicans usually run on smaller govt, lower taxes, etc. – but often end up reneging on their promises. So which are the ‘real’ policies of the candidate? McCain is a prime offender, he’ll flip on immigration just to garner votes from Conservatives and then flop back to open borders once he’s safely elected. Anyone whose been following his antics will know what his real policy on illegal immigration is.

Wait, WTH am I bothering with the examples above for? Take Obama as a whole – voted as the most liberal candidate, ran as a slightly-left centrist and won, leads as a far-left liberal. Which are the ‘official’ policies, and which are the true colours?

Choice of car colour

Links please. I cited it offhand from memory – you can fault me for not researching updates on every point I put in, guilty as charged.

BTW, I said nothing about environment potentially causing people to be gay. Didn’t say anything about the causes, because I don’t think we know enough about them.

Ah yes, my bad. That was actually Melkuphd. Please forgive my mixing – I usually read and respond from the Comments Admin page which arranges comments according to time, not which post they appeared on. Melkuphd, Vee and yourself makes three who have recently been commenting on this page.

Er, yeah, you say “anecdotal”, which really means no solid evidence. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. That’s real. We live in a society in which the culture accepts serial monogamy as normal and right, and there’s a large portion of the young adults in this society that attach little significance to sex. Like it or not, it is what is happening.

Sadly, it is. Should we impose mandatory tests for maturity? Why not go all the way, and demand that all engaged couples undergo pre-marital counseling? Or would that be religious discrimination?

For the record, I am neutral on homosexual marriage.

The first, the Kiddy Fashion. So what? People who are in general somewhat out of the mainstream might be purchasing clothes that you don’t like.

Less a matter of what I dislike, and more a matter of what oglers at the fair DO like…

Hey, here’s an idea – let’s release books about the personal recollections of serial rapist cum killers. I’m sure not a single child will be influenced by the material in a negative manner. The list of underground kidnapping and torture clubs which serve hard liquor? Purely informational, not a hint of suggestion! Don’t forget to hand out the FREE sharpened knives which are mere samples of course!

But in this case, Dems read the numbers and conclude that they do not want to risk alienating more than 50% of voters. So the ratings become the cause.

—

The average person doesn’t care what Obama’s rating is. That person has some feeling about him, and ratings won’t change that view. You won’t like Obama regardless of his rating, and I never liked Bush — or Regan — regardless of their ratings. So, to the average person, ratings don’t matter.

You say:

Yes, they are not ‘official’ Dem policies as laid out in a black and white document. But really, can you argue that they are carrying out such policies despite a lack of stated intent? Surely you are streetwise enough to differentiate between ‘say’ and ‘do’?

—

For most of the things you listed, you were vague enough that I’m not positive exactly what the issue is.

However, for this list:

– Talk radio
– Homeschooling
– Personal prayer and reading own Bible in school
– Raising the American flag in your own property
– Wearing the American flag on your own clothes
– Salt, trans fats, sugar, cholesterol (see Nanny Bloomberg)
– Smoking

I don’t believe anyone is trying to ban any news source or celebrity in talk radio. People, including me, are trying to get those commentators to stop lying to the public, but ban them? No.

Homeschooling. I’ve never heard anyone say that home schooling should be banned. However, I have heard — and I agree with — forcing those same home schooled children to pass tests showing their literacy in all subjects, and yes, that includes science, and yes, that includes evolution.

Personal prayer/ personal bible reading in a public school. Never heard anyone say or imply either should be restricted. Personally, I’d fight *for* the right of students to do either.

American flag? Huh? Never heard that it shouldn’t be worn on clothes, never heard that it shouldn’t be flown at a private residence. Not once.

Salt, trans fats, sugar, cholesterol: Well, the human body requires salt, so we can’t ban it. For it and the others, nope, never heard they should be banned. I have heard some talk about labeling foods in restaurants, and I don’t have a problem with that. I think people ought to understand what they are getting in their food, and I believe that restaurants ought to be able to tell them. But banning? Haven’t heard of it.

Smoking? Nope Heard a hint a long time ago where someone mentioned banning all smoking. I’ve heard a lot about banning smoking in public areas, but smoking in general, not really. I don’t think it can happen, and I’d fight against it.

So, for that list, I’d say no, I don’t believe it’s on the Democratic agenda, official or unofficial.

I cited it offhand from memory – you can fault me for not researching updates on every point I put in, guilty as charged.

—

What bugged me wasn’t that you got it wrong, but that you got it wrong 18 months after the matter had been settled. That’s longer than needed for you to have gotten the correction to what you heard initially.

See, here’s the problem. You cited that as something that was current, and that it was something the democrats wanted. What other places have you said the same thing, and how many others believe something that isn’t true because they trusted what you said? If you present something to me as fact, I assume that it is fact. If it isn’t, I’ll tell you, but I’m more likely to be rude about it if I think you’ve had plenty of time to find that it wasn’t true. I expect no less from myself, and if anyone shows me wrong about something I present as fact, then I get mad at myself, and hopefully admit my error nicely. I try, but I fail at that sometimes. 🙂

You say:

Should we impose mandatory tests for maturity? Why not go all the way, and demand that all engaged couples undergo pre-marital counseling? Or would that be religious discrimination?

—

I haven’t figured out what test would show that a person is mature enough for marriage. Heck, the legal system in this country can’t even agree on what *age* constitutes an adult. Is it 18 or is it 21? Without taking a stand either way, I believe they should settle on one of the two and be done with it. You should either be old enough or you aren’t.

As for counseling, it wouldn’t necessarily be religious discrimination — there are non-religious counselors. I just don’t think it would do any good and wouldn’t support it.

You say:

Called okay by whom, exactly? Not I. And how is dressing kids in leather fetish gear and parading them in a sex-focused gathering NOT exhibiting them?

—

It wasn’t a stage, it was a place that sold outfits, so unless by simply dressing the kids up in those outfits is exhibiting them, they were neither paraded nor exhibited.

If you don’t approve of the five year old girls dressed up for beauty pageants, I suspect you’re in the minority. It’s certainly done outwardly and openly, and done all over the country with full support of all kinds of people.

—

Book Detailing Gay Sex Between First Graders

“Black Book” For Kids Included Tips on Fisting & Pi$$ing on Your Partner

The first book is an honest account of one gay persons life. It isn’t aimed at first graders, but yes, it does seem to talk frankly about what he did as a child. So, what’s the issue here? Is the issue that it happened? It’s hard to blame that on anyone but the parents or caregivers. That the kid/adult wrote the book? I sorta doubt it, and if you want to argue he shouldn’t have written, fine. I don’t agree, but I’m not going to argue that point. I suspect the issue is that the book is on a “recommended reading list”.

But let me ask you a question. What books should be on a recommended reading list for 14-21 YO kids who think they might be gay? Would you allow *any* book that talked about homosexuality as a viable life choice? This is a book about one person’s experiences growing up, and it might well help a teen that is having problems dealing with being gay.

The “Black Book”? First, it isn’t a book, but a short pamphlet. Next, unlike how you titled it, it was never meant specifically for kids. And I have no problems with it being handed out to kids who at an age where they need correct and factual information about sex, straight or gay. I’m of the opinion that the more and better information anyone has, the better decisions that can be made. I do have somewhat of a problem with listing the bars. Going to bars isn’t for a thirteen year old. But the writers of that pamphlet didn’t, as I said, aim it toward children, it was aimed at adult, gay, males. Should it have been passed out? Yeah, I still think so, and again, it’s because I’d much rather kids have then information than not.

High School Students Given “Fisting Kits” At Kevin Jennings’ GLSEN Conference

If you did in far enough past the right wing propaganda, you find the following:

Planned Parenthood distributed safe sex kits including “instructions for how to make a ‘dental dam.’ Massachusetts News described the kit’s contents as “a single plastic glove, a package of K-Y lubricant and instructions on how to make a ‘dental dam’ out of the material.”

Now, while you may not agree with distributing materials to provide someone who’s providing oral sex to someone else, it’s very, very different than distributing a fisting kit. Here’s a link, and while it starts with saying PP distributed kits for fisting and oral sex, it’s clear from the instructions inside the package that while the kit might be used for fisting, the kit wasn’t distributed as such.

Children influenced by books? Good heavens, no! Here’s a few that you probably wouldn’t approve of, but are relatively popular now: The “Uglies” trilogy by Scott Westerfeld. After 16, sex with anyone is okay. (No sex in the books, though.) “Silence of the Lambs”. Almost glorifies a cannibal/serial killer. “The Hunger Games”, by Suzanne Collins. The first book is about a sixteen year old forced to go into an arena and kill other kids. It vividly portrays the death of a 12 YO from a spear. Jurassic Park. (I assume you don’t agree with evolution — if I’m wrong, I remove it from the list.) Any number of books out right now that glorify vampires. “Stranger in a Strange Land”, a classic of science fiction, or almost any late Heinlein. All of them treat sex as being okay as long as all involved agree. “To Kill a Mocking Bird”. It’s easy to forget just how controversial the book was when released — and it remains so. “Forever” by Judy Blume. If you aren’t familiar with it, I’ll let you look it up. I can’t currently think of any books I’ve read that star an serial killer/rapist, but I bet they’re out there and available in libraries. (Oh, wait, “The Dead Zone” by Stephen King almost qualifies..)

Will children be influenced by what they read? Probably. I certainly was. There’s a scene in a book called “Have Space Suit, Will Travel” where the main character, in his head, calculates the amount of water flowing through a trough, how big the room is that he is in, and how long it will take to fill the room. I’ve never forgotten that — it inspired me to learn arithmetic well, and it inspired me to learn to calculate relatively complex problems in my head. Around the same time I also read “The Exorcist”. Didn’t get nightmares, and about the only lasting effect it had was my enjoyment of horror.

I think we treat information differently. It seems to me you feel that there is a point in a person’s life where that person is no longer a child and can be exposed to information safely. I believe that regardless of age, if a person is asking the questions, it’s time to answer. Regardless of the availability of the information, I’d do the same. However, information is so easy to get, it seems to me that trying to withhold information from a 14 YO simply won’t work unless you have absolute control over their life. And I don’t think that’s appropriate either.

In regards to the question of whether or not it’s natural, I don’t think it really matters. I’m sure that for at least some gay penguins, or people for that matter, it’s totally natural. But that doesn’t make it okay. You know what else comes naturally to many animals? Rape, eating your own vomit, eating your young, killing the offspring of animals that might compete for your position in the group… since all these are natural, and whatever is natural should be allowed to run its course, perhaps we should condone this behavior too! After all, if it comes naturally to someone, who are we to judge them?

” No apply to homosexuality between animals in the wild. Natural? Yes, they do it without human prompting. No, because such matings serve no propagative purpose.”

Reproduction is not the only life-sustaining purpose that sexual behaviors can serve. Again, you show a fundamental lack of understanding about animal behavior. Several hundred species engage in homosexual behaviors, likely for adaptive reasons, even if these reasons do not include procreation. Bonobos, for instance, are thought to engage in such acts to reduce social tensions, thus preventing intraspecies violence and increasing the probability that many individuals from the group will survive to procreate.

“Homosexuality is not associated with lesser happiness or life satisfaction. The suffering associated with homosexuality is typically a result of harassment by those with some moral opposition based on religious texts that are likely using the term homosexuality to refer to same sex pedophilic behavior. Response- I disagree, as there are few polls or studies on the matter and any reports from those polled are highly likely to be slanted in order not to make their own lifestyle choice look bad. Anecodotal reports point to far more prelavent instances of multiple partners and moving on to new partners.”

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Many studies do indicate a LACK of sexual orientation-based discrepancies in many facets of psychological well-being. These studies are not watered down media reports of biased polls, though. They are in respected, peer-reviewed scholarly journals.

Here’s what I don’t get. Individuals who post materials similar to what is on this page claim to have evidence to support beliefs that are simply ideological. Empiricism cannot support or disprove ideology. You claim that something about these penguins supports your ideological beliefs about homosexuality, but the use of evidence to support ideology represents a fundamental flaw in logic that generates ridiculous and nonsensical arguments. My guess is that you don’t support homosexuality because of religious scripture. If this is the case, just say that. I would have far more respect for this position that all this nonsensical dribble.

“…Silo, gay icon and shining example of the alternative lifestyles of nature… Paired up with a female named Scrappy. Does this say anything about Silo’s true preferences? (PLUS: Another ’caused solely by genes and all natural’ gay penguin couple succumbs to heterosexuality.)”

About homosexuality and genetics – What about all those homosexual men, and women that are afraid of being shunned by the world? Aren’t there many men and women that are on the downlow? MANY married men are in fact gay and have secret gay relationships….These men also have children – which would inherit some of his genes. Right?

Correct, but that is a form of cheating. It’s like having a gene for fatal cancer at age 20, but you quickly have lots of kids before you die from it. The spread of the cancer gene is not because of the gene, but in spite of it.

Note how I am careful to specify ‘purely homosexual’ as opposed to bisexual or occasionally homosexual.

Point three is a complete biology fail. I think the writer of this article doesn’t really understand how genetics work.
Most people with cystic fibrosis die very young, before they can reproduce. So why do people with cystic fibrosis still exist? By you’re logic they should have all died out by now.

Cystic fibrosis is a recessive trait, which means that only if an individual with two sets of genes coding for cystic fibrosis will display symptoms. They will also be sterile.

So yeah, I’ll give that if homosexuality is a recessive trait, then heterozygous carriers mating would every now and then produce homosexual offspring. Like cystic fibrosis sufferers, they would also be unable to reproduce without ‘help’, thus ending their particular genetic line. I’ve added this comment to the main post.

So sure, put homosexuality as a recessive trait comparable to a horrible disease that is an undesirable mutation. I’m sure the rainbow lobby will be most grateful for the comparison.

I love how somehow the possibility of the penguin being bisexual is ignored. The options are not either gay or straight. I believe homosexuality to be natural and yes perhaps even in the greater good of species. For instance, our world is close to being overpopulated, the military is doing there part is population control not on purpose of course but war serves as a medium to lower the human population. Studies reflect that 5-10 of persons are LGBT ,granted individuals in the metaphorical closet can’t be counted, but nature reflects roughly the same percentage of animals that have been observed in same sex relationships. Coincidence? I should think not. So the question I’m posing is even if we are automatically attracted to the same gender for the sake of keeping our species around despite the fact that we’re overpopulated we should procreate in heterosexual relationships.”My argument is simply whether or not homosexuality is a viable, beneficial and desirable natural result. Quite plainly, it is not – if everyone were purely homosexual, the species would be extinct in one generation.” Now you are taking a very small percent of the human population and applying it to everyone. That is by definition a straw man argument. The species as a whole was never considered to be homosexual, especially as only as small percentage is LGBT. That would be like me attempting to prove a point by saying what if everyone was intersex, how is that relevant? You example in no way could be true. Furthermore you are trying to prove a point that because the end result of an action is not favorable is shouldn’t be done. Just because everyone is oriented to the same sex they should still have sex with the opposite sex because if they don’t the consequences would spell DOOM!!!11111. Nice use of hyperbole, but you used another logical fallacy called Argument from Adverse Consequences. Essentially because Gays cannot reproduce it is not beneficial to our species. I then counter with this argument. Since heterosexuals have continued mating and is in the process of overpopulating the Earth they must not be beneficial to our species either. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?

I love how somehow the possibility of the penguin being bisexual is ignored.

Noted on the bisexual option. I myself wonder why few consider that behavioural patterns of any kind might be a mix of genetic and environmental factors. But to admit so would pull the rug out from under ‘civil rights advocates’ who argue that sexual orientation cannot be changed.

For instance, our world is close to being overpopulated, the military is doing there part is population control not on purpose of course but war serves as a medium to lower the human population.

I love how so many advocates for homosexuality use the ‘overpopulation’ argument. It doesn’t work – many homosexual couples opt for a surrogate mother/father in order to produce a child who is genetically related to one of the couple. How does that at all reduce overpopulation?

And this is without going into the debunking of Malthusian doomsday scenarios.

Now you are taking a very small percent of the human population and applying it to everyone. That is by definition a straw man argument.

Hmm, admittedly so. It wasn’t the best way to rephrase my earlier ‘Homosexual genes hinder their own propagation’ point.

Furthermore you are trying to prove a point that because the end result of an action is not favorable is shouldn’t be done. Just because everyone is oriented to the same sex they should still have sex with the opposite sex because if they don’t the consequences would spell DOOM!!!11111.

No no no. I was just trying to point out that if homosexuality is a 100% genetically determined trait (no environmental influence at all), and homosexuals DIDN’T have sex with the opposite gender, how would the genes for homosexuality not become extinct.

But to admit so would pull the rug out from under ‘civil rights advocates’ who argue that sexual orientation cannot be changed.

Scott, religious objections, could you force yourself to be attracted to males instead of females?

Why is it so hard to accept that sexual preferences are hardwired into our personalities like every other personal preference?

By way of analogy… I don’t like chocolate ice cream. Now according to your logic, if society suddenly decreed that eating chocolate ice cream is normal (based on majority preference) and the consumption of all other flavors is a sin, then I should either force myself to like chocolate, or else abstain from eating ice cream altogether. See how silly that sounds?

No no no. I was just trying to point out that if homosexuality is a 100% genetically determined trait (no environmental influence at all), and homosexuals DIDN’T have sex with the opposite gender, how would the genes for homosexuality not become extinct.

Scott, religious objections, could you force yourself to be attracted to males instead of females?

Why is it so hard to accept that sexual preferences are hardwired into our personalities like every other personal preference?

That’s like me asking, why don’t we let embryos grow to 18 years of age before asking them whether they agree to be aborted.

How about for young children who have not been, and shouldn’t be, exposed to sexuality yet? Do you deny that impressionable young minds can be influenced – groomed – to tend towards a certain preference? I’ve heard enough firsthand accounts to be unable to dismiss them offhand.

(On that too young bit, you can see why critics are suspicious of efforts to teach children about sex practices.)

Personal preferences can change. I know countless stories of people who hated cats until one stole their heart. Or sputtered at wine and beer but kept drinking for social grace’s sake, until one day they found they actually had acquired a taste for it.

And just to reiterate, I do not oppose homosexuality on humanistic grounds. I merely affirm that Christianity does not consider it permissible according to the Bible (something that no one has seriously argued to me yet).
Let consenting adults do what they want! Homosexuality, incest, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia, voluntary cannibalism. Just don’t try and say Christianity accepts it and mainstreamers are bigots for not adopting this view.

By the way, I regularly mock that all of the above should be permissible according to liberal humanistic atheism, yet most are still illegal. What’s your excuse, some omnipotent plate of pasta told you to hate them?

Sometimes I read the news, and I wonder if the way I feel about “How do these people reconcile such idiocy with their rational thinking?!!” is the same as you must feel about religious conservatives.

Because California state government has so much money that legislators hardly know what to do with it all, state senators passed a bill today to give financial aid to illegal immigrants who are college students. Plenty of U.S. citizens are short financial aid — never mind our eternal budget crisis — but apparently lawmakers still think we have $40 million available to hand over to non-citizens. – L.A. Times Loves Them Some Financial Aid to Illegal Immigrants

Just curious, do you know some argument to justify spending US taxpayer monies on illegal immigrants with the following in mind:

1) Illegal immigrants have broken the law by entering the US – duh – illegally;
2) They likely do not pay taxes themselves as they are undocumented and work under the radar;
3) With the jobless rate as currently, they take up jobs Americans could use;
4) As mentioned in the excerpt, Americans are waiting for that financial aid that will go to illegals;
5) The state of California is already close to insolvency, so spend MORE money???

Any argument not summarized as RACISM mind you.

Every state went through the recession and took Stimulus funds, so why are Liberal states (e.g. Illinois, most job losses in country) failing why Conservative states surviving (e.g. Texas, most jobs gained)?

That’s like me asking, why don’t we let embryos grow to 18 years of age before asking them whether they agree to be aborted. […]

***sigh*** 😦

Avoids questions and changes subject — again.

Personal preferences can change. I know countless stories of people who hated cats until one stole their heart. Or sputtered at wine and beer but kept drinking for social grace’s sake, until one day they found they actually had acquired a taste for it.

While it’s true that there are acquired tastes for many things, no one forces you to like cats over dogs, or consume alcohol to the exclusion of non-alcoholic beverages. So why make an exception when it comes to sexual preferences? Different strokes for different folks, n’est–ce pas?

And just to reiterate, I do not oppose homosexuality on humanistic grounds. I merely affirm that Christianity does not consider it permissible according to the Bible (something that no one has seriously argued to me yet).

See, this is where we differ. My ideological position is formulated after carefully examining the facts and weighing the evidence. And these opinions aren’t cast in stone — they are constantly re-evaluated when new information presents itself. In other words, my philosophy is shaped by reality, and not the other way round.

Let consenting adults do what they want! Homosexuality, incest, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia, voluntary cannibalism. Just don’t try and say Christianity accepts it and mainstreamers are bigots for not adopting this view.

By the way, I regularly mock that all of the above should be permissible according to liberal humanistic atheism, yet most are still illegal. What’s your excuse, some omnipotent plate of pasta told you to hate them?

Why is it still illegal? Well, that’s because in most countries public policy is still shaped by the views of a religious majority.

Sometimes I read the news, and I wonder if the way I feel about “How do these people reconcile such idiocy with their rational thinking?!!” is the same as you must feel about religious conservatives.

Another side discussion which can be quickly shut down by examining the facts. To wit:

Every state went through the recession and took Stimulus funds, so why are Liberal states (e.g. Illinois, most job losses in country) failing why Conservative states surviving (e.g. Texas, most jobs gained)?

Look on a map, Scott. It’s a big country and every state has a different economic driver. States that are heavily dependent on manufacturing or inter-state tourism aren’t likely to recover quickly when there’s no consumer demand. States that rely heavily on agriculture are at the mercy of both nature and commodity markets. The Texas economy is driven by the oil industry — a commodity for which demand never ceases. The jobs gained in that state were mostly in-migrations from other states. Rick Perry had nothing to do with it — those job gains would have occurred anyways.

But to answer directly – yes, I believe it is possible – but difficult – to change the sexual preference of an adult, myself included. It is easier without decades of ingrained habit.

While it’s true that there are acquired tastes for many things, no one forces you to like cats over dogs, or consume alcohol to the exclusion of non-alcoholic beverages. So why make an exception when it comes to sexual preferences?

No one advocating for forced preferences here. As explained previously.

See, this is where we differ. My ideological position is formulated after carefully examining the facts and weighing the evidence. And these opinions aren’t cast in stone — they are constantly re-evaluated when new information presents itself. In other words, my philosophy is shaped by reality, and not the other way round.

And what reality is formed by my opinions here?

I say homosexuality = not permitted according to Bible.

I show passages backing up that claim.

Why is it still illegal? Well, that’s because in most countries public policy is still shaped by the views of a religious majority.

And yet, as I point out, the majority of liberal humanist atheists in these places do not speak out in support of those practices. Although once in a while, you get people like Frank Kameny and the self-declared atheist commentors here who support consenting incest.

The Texas economy is driven by the oil industry — a commodity for which demand never ceases.

Yes, but the supply can always be artificially restricted.

Job losses previously estimated on the basis of a six-month moratorium on deep water drilling and exploration have increased from 8,000 regionally and 12,000 nationally to 13,000 regionally and 19,000 nationally.

Lost wages of $500 million regionally and $700 million nationally are now $800 million regionally and $1.1 billion nationally. Lost tax revenues estimated to be $100 million on the state and local level and $200 million on the national level now amount to $155 million and $350 million, respectively.

after taxpayers had spent $527 million propping up the company (or $479,000 per temporary job created).

Oops!

You’d think with oil prices so high and the supply being choked off, solar would face less competition. Adam Smith’s stoopid invisibul hand, y u no support environments!

In any case, as to your myth:

Most new jobs are unrelated to the oil and gas sector: “The most jobs have been created in the educational and health services sector, which accounts for 13.5 percent of Texas’ employment. The second-most jobs have been created in the professional and business services sector, which accounts for 12.5 percent of the Texas workforce. The mining sector, which includes support activities for both mining and oil and gas, employs 2.1 percent (yes, two-point-one percent) of Texas’ workers.”

Most New Jobs Pay Good Wages: “…these jobs are not low-paying jobs. The average weekly wage in the education and health services sector is $790; in the professional and business services sector it is $1,117; and in the mining sector, the average weekly wage is $2,271. Together these three sectors account for 68 percent of the jobs that have been created in Texas in the past two years.”

No one advocating for forced preferences here. As explained previously.

Great. So why devote multiple threads on the topic?

And what reality is formed by my opinions here?

Huh? Your entire life is structured around the belief that an ancient text is an inerrant and divinely inspired guide on how to conduct your life. Or as Sam Harris said:

Christianity is predicated on the claim that miracle stories, exactly of the kind that today surround a person like Sathya Sai Baba, become especially credible when you place them in the pre-scientific, religious context of the first century Roman Empire, decades after their supposed occurrence, as attested to by copies of copies of copies of ancient Greek, and largely discrepant manuscripts.

We have Sathya Sai Baba’s miracle stories attested to by thousands upon thousands of living eyewitnesses, and they don’t even merit an hour on cable television, and yet you put a few miracle stories in an ancient book, and half the people on Earth think it a legitimate project to organize their lives around them. Does anyone else see a problem with that?

I say homosexuality = not permitted according to Bible.

I show passages backing up that claim.

Where does the Bible say you are not permitted to be gay? And what factual evidence establishes the Bible as a moral authority on sexual practices?

And yet, as I point out, the majority of liberal humanist atheists in these places do not speak out in support of those practices. Although once in a while, you get people like Frank Kameny and the self-declared atheist commentors here who support consenting incest.

How many atheists are going to broach these topics openly in an Islamic society knowing that such candor would jeopardize their health and safety?

Yes, but the supply can always be artificially restricted.

That wound was self-inflicted. The moratorium wouldn’t have been imposed had BP honored its commitments to environmental stewardship.

WASHINGTON, D.C., and CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — The U.S. solar energy industry had a banner year in 2010 with the industry’s total market value growing 67 percent from $3.6 billion in 2009 to $6.0 billion in 2010, according to the U.S. Solar Market InsightTM: Year-in-Review 2010 released today by the Solar Energy Industries Association® (SEIA®) and GTM Research. Solar was a bright spot in the U.S. economy last year as the fastest growing energy sector, contrasting overall U.S. GDP growth of less than 3 percent.

after taxpayers had spent $527 million propping up the company (or $479,000 per temporary job created).

Oops!

Ya win some, ya lose some. Not every business venture will be a success.

You’d think with oil prices so high and the supply being choked off, solar would face less competition. Adam Smith’s stoopid invisibul hand, y u no support environments!

Actually, solar faces stiff competition from within its own industry — Solyndra failed because an oversupply in the marketplace led to fierce pricing wars which wiped out the company’s profit margins.

In any case, as to your myth:

It’s not a myth. In Texas, oil is the economic motor which keeps all those other businesses alive.

Reversing cause and effect. People migrate to Texas because of the job opportunities, which is why Texas has a high unemployment % despite its adding half the jobs in the country.

My point was that the influx was not motivated by political policy. Save for his political cronies, Rick Perry didn’t “create” jobs — he just happened to be the presiding Governor when people migrated to Texas.

1) To debunk various arguments made.
2) Same reason you comment here, for the lols.

We have Sathya Sai Baba’s miracle stories attested to by thousands upon thousands of living eyewitnesses, and they don’t even merit an hour on cable television

So how come you aren’t a Sai Baba follower? Seeing is believing right?

Where does the Bible say you are not permitted to be gay? And what factual evidence establishes the Bible as a moral authority on sexual practices?

In the strictest terms, the Bible does not say you cannot be gay. Just as it does not say you cannot be prone to kleptomanic tendencies, or uncontrollable attractions to livestock.

What the Bible does say is that

1) You must not act on those urges,
2) You must not even indulge those urges mentally

On moral authority, I won’t bother trying to apply it to nonChristians. As for Christians, it should be a given that if you want to claim yourself as part of a group (‘join the club’, so to speak) then you should follow the norms of the group, not try to wrench the norms to fit your preferences (e.g. you don’t join a Vegan club and try to make them accept a beef steak cookout).

How many atheists are going to broach these topics openly in an Islamic society knowing that such candor would jeopardize their health and safety?

I meant your precious liberal and humanist freethinking West.

That wound was self-inflicted. The moratorium wouldn’t have been imposed had BP honored its commitments to environmental stewardship.

You speak as if:

1) All oil companies are as irresponsible as BP
2) Shallow water drilling were not banned which is why they had to resort to far more dangerous deep water drilling
3) Landed drilling such as at the ANWR were not banned (comparative size of drilling area to ANWR area: a postage stamp on a tennis court)

Ya win some, ya lose some. Not every business venture will be a success.

It’s getting to be a pattern, where the companies Obama touts as models of success invariably tumble and fall.

Kinda like the ‘Gore Effect’ where anyplace he goes to speak about global warming ends up having snowfall!

It’s not a myth. In Texas, oil is the economic motor which keeps all those other businesses alive.

You just made an excellent argument for allowing drilling all across America.

So tell me, why should America NOT drill its own oil – especially with US jobs floundering, oil prices so high, Mid East oil money used to sponsor terrorists, China taking oil from North American regions via Cuba, and the US subsidizing Brazil to drill their own oil?

My point was that the influx was not motivated by political policy. Save for his political cronies, Rick Perry didn’t “create” jobs — he just happened to be the presiding Governor when people migrated to Texas.

So how come you aren’t a Sai Baba follower? Seeing is believing right?

Ya missed the point. Please re-read the two paragraphs in context.

IOn moral authority, I won’t bother trying to apply it to nonChristians. As for Christians, it should be a given that if you want to claim yourself as part of a group (‘join the club’, so to speak) then you should follow the norms of the group, not try to wrench the norms to fit your preferences (e.g. you don’t join a Vegan club and try to make them accept a beef steak cookout).

According to the club’s founder there is but only one requirement to gain admission — believe in Jesus. (John 3:16)

I meant your precious liberal and humanist freethinking West.

Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden all have legalized same-sex marriage. Other European nations have civil union laws which grant the same rights as marriage. France and Germany have recently tabled legislation to grant same-sex marriages.

In the US, same-sex marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Washington all recognize civil unions.

And while it’s certainly possible for some atheists to be opposed to same-sex marriage (Julia Gillard, the current Prime Minister of Australia comes to mind), I think this is the exception rather than the rule.

You speak as if:

1) All oil companies are as irresponsible as BP

That’s because they ALL have been irresponsible, and as this article points out, even China is now beginning to tighten its regulations.

2) Shallow water drilling were not banned which is why they had to resort to far more dangerous deep water drilling
3) Landed drilling such as at the ANWR were not banned (comparative size of drilling area to ANWR area: a postage stamp on a tennis court)

ANWAR covers roughly 20 million acres. The proposed drilling sites would decimate about 1.5 million acres, or roughly 8% of the area. That’s an awfully big postage stamp.

You just made an excellent argument for allowing drilling all across America.

So tell me, why should America NOT drill its own oil – especially with US jobs floundering, oil prices so high, Mid East oil money used to sponsor terrorists, China taking oil from North American regions via Cuba, and the US subsidizing Brazil to drill their own oil?

To me, this obsession to rape the earth for that last drop of oil sounds very similar to a crack addiction. Why not admit we have a problem and move towards developing an economy that’s based on sustainable energy instead?

Ironically, all the arguments being defeated are those raised by the anti-gay contingent.

Claiming such does not make such reality. But hey, it’s your opinion.

Ya missed the point. Please re-read the two paragraphs in context.

Oh, I got the point alright. So I ask, if multitudes of modern day witnesses should be evidence enough to convert Christians away from millenia-old stories, should it not also be evidence enough to convert an agnostic atheist?

According to the club’s founder there is but only one requirement to gain admission — believe in Jesus. (John 3:16)

Maybe so, but there are plenty of club rules to obey if you don’t want to get your membership revoked. Also according to the founder.

Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden all have legalized same-sex marriage. Other European nations have civil union laws which grant the same rights as marriage. France and Germany have recently tabled legislation to grant same-sex marriages.

Great, now why have these liberal and forward-looking places not legalized zoophilia (o wait some alrdy have!), consensual incest between adults not resulting in pregnancy, consensual necrophilia, polygamy…

ANWAR covers roughly 20 million acres. The proposed drilling sites would decimate about 1.5 million acres, or roughly 8% of the area. That’s an awfully big postage stamp.

Word lawyer time!

To decimate is to remove one tenth.

Therefore only 0.8% of ANWR will be affected.

To me, this obsession to rape the earth for that last drop of oil sounds very similar to a crack addiction. Why not admit we have a problem and move towards developing an economy that’s based on sustainable energy instead?

Using your addiction analogy, how do you end an addiction to hard drugs? Yank the user off cold turkey without any support system prepared? (Besides, I thought libs were big on legalization of recreational drugs.)

I’m all for a shift away from fossil fuels, as I’ve mentioned before, and for reasons mentioned before. As mentioned before (again), the technology is not ready quite yet and to use government coercion to force a change is deleterious.

What can I say? The Bush administration recklessly drove the economy over a cliff and then sheepishly tossed Obama the keys saying, “Here you go son. Good luck with the repairs.”

Did you guys elect Obama to keep driving down the cliff and give you Bush’s Third Term? (Why not pick McCain then?) Or was The One supposed to fix things?

Again, why is it Reagan could similarly ‘inherit’ a big mess and turn it around?

(I say it’s because he focused on tax cuts instead of stimuluses, but that’s anathema to Big Govt libs.)

As I already explained elsewhere, Perry balanced the budget with those federal stimulus funds that he was so adamantly opposed to. Now that they’ve run out, Texas faces huge budget deficits.

The rest of the States got Stimulus too. So where are their jobs?

Give any number of excuses or alternate theories you want, the fact remains that somehow all the ‘coincidences’ line up in such a way that Conservative governors and Presidents and Congresses enjoy better economies.

(Maybe God just has a sense of humour when it comes to Liberal bosses.)

Claim:It doesn’t occur in the animal kingdom.Fact:It does occur in the animal kingdom.

Claim:It only occurs among animals held in captivity.Fact:It also occurs in the wild. Furthermore, Roy & silo were given the opportunity to mate with females and rejected that option.

Claim:It’s unnatural.Fact:By definition everything that occurs in nature IS natural.

Claim:Gays can’t reproduce.Fact:Not all hetero couples have children — some can’t and others choose not to procreate.

Claim:Children raised in gay homes end up becoming gay.Fact:Completely unfounded. Some might, but the majority don’t.

Claim:Children raised by gay couples are antisocial or otherwise maladjusted compared to kids raised by hetero couples.Fact:Comprehensive research has refuted those claims.

So what does that leave you with? Oh yeah, some ancient text written by superstitious desert dwellers says that it’s an abomination.

Oh, I got the point alright. So I ask, if multitudes of modern day witnesses should be evidence enough to convert Christians away from millenia-old stories, should it not also be evidence enough to convert an agnostic atheist?

Science abetted by logic and reason informs me that all miracle claims to date have a natural explanation. But the question isn’t why I don’t believe. The question is: Why do you reject all modern miracle claims which fall outside the scope of your own religious convictions?

Maybe so, but there are plenty of club rules to obey if you don’t want to get your membership revoked. Also according to the founder.

Be careful Scott, because now you’re treading into apostasy — there are several Christian denominations which claim that you are saved only by grace alone, not by works, and once saved, you remain saved. But I’ll let you guys hash it out amongst yourselves.

Great, now why have these liberal and forward-looking places not legalized zoophilia (o wait some alrdy have!), consensual incest between adults not resulting in pregnancy, consensual necrophilia, polygamy…

We’ve already gone down this road before. There’s no such thing as consensual bestiality or necrophilia because neither animals nor corpses can grant informed consent. And based on the comments left on other threads it appears that most atheists are open to incest and polygamy between consenting adults.

Word lawyer time!

To decimate is to remove one tenth.

Therefore only 0.8% of ANWR will be affected.

I’m not sure how you do math in Malaysia, but on this side of the planet 1.5 divided by 20 equals 8%, not 0.8% — which is close to 10% and four times larger than the 2% of a number ten envelope taken up by a postage stamp. And I think we both know that once all the accidental (and not so accidental) oil spills and other “oopsie-dos” are factored into the equation the total land areas affected will be significantly greater than initially proposed.

Using your addiction analogy, how do you end an addiction to hard drugs? Yank the user off cold turkey without any support system prepared? (Besides, I thought libs were big on legalization of recreational drugs.)

A successful rehab program focuses not only on physical withdrawal, but also on a comprehensive behavior modification program where unhealthy activities are replaced with healthy ones. As it pertains to energy use, the first step in the right direction is to reduce consumption by promoting energy-efficient alternatives. The next step is to wean people off of private automobiles by building denser cities, providing better public transportation and promoting human-powered mobility (which has the side benefit of improving people’s overall health). It can be done — all it requires is an adjustment to current thinking.

Did you guys elect Obama to keep driving down the cliff and give you Bush’s Third Term? (Why not pick McCain then?) Or was The One supposed to fix things?

Do you think I’m not disappointed in how things are going? In retrospect, Obama’s biggest faults appear to be his lack of backbone and his (by now deflated) overconfidence in thinking that he can somehow manage to gain bipartisan support by excising the twin demons of entrenched bureaucracy and political infighting.

Again, why is it Reagan could similarly ‘inherit’ a big mess and turn it around? (I say it’s because he focused on tax cuts instead of stimuluses, but that’s anathema to Big Govt libs.)

Do you even read my comments? I already posted an analysis of the Reagan administration which (among other things) detailed that his tax cuts were short-lived, and that overall government spending actually increased — along with the debt and annual deficits.

The rest of the States got Stimulus too. So where are their jobs?

Sheesh, I already told you that governments don’t “create” jobs. They regulate the economy by stimulating (or controlling) private investment through fiscal policy. Perry used his money to keep public health care and education afloat. The remainder was funneled into a “rainy day” account he now refuses to touch.

(Maybe God just has a sense of humour when it comes to Liberal bosses.)

In that case I guess your god must have some major beefs with the State of Texas because their prayers for rain still remain unanswered. 😉

Look on a map, Scott. It’s a big country and every state has a different economic driver. States that are heavily dependent on manufacturing or inter-state tourism aren’t likely to recover quickly when there’s no consumer demand. States that rely heavily on agriculture are at the mercy of both nature and commodity markets. The Texas economy is driven by the oil industry — a commodity for which demand never ceases. – Ron

Someone may have addressed this point already, and admittedly this post is a little old, but I’ll go ahead anyway. You base your ‘homosexuality is influenced by environment’ argument on a single data point. Tango is one example. If she had grown up to be heterosexual, would that demolish your argument just as easily? No. Because one is not a reliable sample size. Statistically speaking, it holds absolutely no significance.

But to veer away from statistics for a moment, if environment is so crucially important to sexuality, why does homosexuality exist at all? Parents do influence their children, yes, but not to the level that seems to be suggested here. Peers and culture are important as well. I would not be at all surprised to find that the gay children of gay parents tend to be quicker to come out – but if you then took sexuality out of the equation and tested based on parents’ openness and acceptance of other sexualities, you’d find the same differences. This is just conjecture, my personal opinion, so I fully expect you to rip it to shreds on that basis. But it’s another potential explanation.

But let me ask you this – why does it matter? Say you’re right, that homosexuality is a matter of choice (and if it is, I dare you to try homosexuality and see how easy you find it) and it is positively influenced by homosexual carers. What is wrong with that? What is your issue with homosexuality in the first place? You seem to be coming from a genetics standpoint, so the logical answer is that homosexual couples cannot naturally reproduce. But we live in a society where natural reproduction is not the only way – there is assisted reproduction, adoption and who knows what other technologies we’ll develop in the future. In addition, the population of our planet is booming. Reproduction may not be so important in the near future.

Birthrates also decrease as women become better educated. If reproduction is your only issue here, then by the same logic you should have a problem with that. If it isn’t, then by all means enlighten me. Do you have a non-moral, non-religious argument against homosexuality? Because if you don’t, then I fail to see the point of this article.

You base your ‘homosexuality is influenced by environment’ argument on a single data point.

For the purposes of this post, yes, admittedly so. After all, this post is meant as a counter to the usage of Roy & Silo as an argument for human homosexuality.

This is just conjecture, my personal opinion, so I fully expect you to rip it to shreds on that basis. But it’s another potential explanation.

Personally, I tend to a mixture of nature and nurture. Hence I oppose both extreme sides of the argument that say it’s 100% genetic or 100% learned.

But let me ask you this – why does it matter? Say you’re right, that homosexuality is a matter of choice (and if it is, I dare you to try homosexuality and see how easy you find it) and it is positively influenced by homosexual carers. What is wrong with that? What is your issue with homosexuality in the first place?

Just as a topic of personal interest. I came across the ‘argument fom penguins’ more than once, and it motivated me to do this post to share my realizations about how flimsy an argument it is.

Feel free to share our views on my taste in video game webcomics too.

But we live in a society where natural reproduction is not the only way – there is assisted reproduction, adoption and who knows what other technologies we’ll develop in the future. In addition, the population of our planet is booming. Reproduction may not be so important in the near future.

It’s not about ‘homosexuality is wrong because reproduction is important’. It’s ‘I think the idea that homosexuality is 100% genetically determined doesn’t gel when 100% homosexual individuals will fail to pass on their genes for homosexuality’.

On a related note, population may reach a plateau due to already falling fertility rates – the developing world’s rates will eventually end up like the first world’s rates.

Do you have a non-moral, non-religious argument against homosexuality?

Overall moral hazards for another (look at the kids), though you argue that morals are religiously-linked, relative, or that the link I give is not reflective of the general homosexual/proponent populace (I don’t hear much objection from them, though).

Anyway, as I’ve said often (including in previosu comments on this page), I do not argue that homosexuality is humanistically wrong or should be restricted, just that it is not permissible within JudeoChristianity.

Because if you don’t, then I fail to see the point of this article.

As mentioned in the post, in earlier comments, and in this comment, it is merely as a response to the penguin paraders.

Just to check with Scott 2 things…for clarity…and to know more about Christians believe…

“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” – Leviticus 20:13

Many people questioned the Islamic death penalty ..even canning the offenders. The above quote of Leviticus shows laws of God long time ago provide such penalties (Muslim believe Musa alaihissalam (Moses and Jesus etc) were all prophets of Islam).

Secondly.. about “Bible passages that oppese homosexuality – including the words of Jesus and God Himself”…

Words of Jesus is NOT the words of God?…and they are two different persons/ identity ACCORDING TO YOUR believe?

Well of the above you cite, none of them have any explicit continuation in the NT except for 20:13 (see the link I gave earlier), and some echoes of 20:9 (see Matthew 15:3-9), 23:3 (see Matthew 12:1-14 where the Sabbath is to be kept holy but within reason), and 24:13 (see Luke 12:8-10).

In fact, 20:25 is directly negated by Matthew 15:10-11 and Acts 10:9-16 (though certain denominations or groups still hold to the Mosaic dietary laws for Jews).

Now if I were an observant Jew, that would be another matter… But I still would not be personally allowed to execute a homosexual or blasphemer, as that is the pregorative of the Sanhedrin:

Q: I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A: You are forbidden to kill him yourself. The death penalty may only be administered by a court of 23 ordained rabbis (see tractate Sanhedrin). Since there are no genuinely ordained rabbis (and won’t be until Elijah returns), no competent court can be convened.

Thanks Shon (Sean).. L 19:26 “Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it…do not practice divination or sorcery/ or fortune telling/future telling/do witchcraft…” This is 100% Islamic. Make “sihir” (wichtcraft/ black magic/sorvery) is one of the big sin in Islam. Muslims also cannot eat any meat, before blood is dried out/ cleaned out of it..

As for L. 19:13 (be good to your neighbors) also in line with Islamic teaching. Also 20:9 (curse his father/mother)…also.

In fact MANY Biblical verses..of The Old Testament especially are similar to Islamic/ Quranic teaching

But we (Muslims) do not believe in this verse: “Nothing from outside will make you unclean..” From where this verse is…I don’t know.

If you take a look thru the link, the title refers to different sections – one section cites Jesus’ words (in the New Testament), and another section cites God the Father’s words (i the Old Testament).

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. – The Christian Trinity in the Old Testament – God is I, Us and He

The last one is an Old Testament example of God referring to Himself as ‘I’ (first person) and also ‘He’ (third person). The book of Isaiah has a copy in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating to 300 years before Jesus, so it can’t have been ‘faked’ after the start of Christianity.

You are right in saying that we consider Jesus and God (the Father) to be not the same person. However, they are the same entity of the One God. Hence our term, God in Three Persons.

They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:- Acts 28:25 (Wasn’t it God who spoke to the prophets? Holy Spirit = God) – Why the Holy Spirit is Considered God (and So is Jesus)

I can understand the Muslim understanding of Holy Ghost = Gabriel, as ‘Roh Kudus’ is used to refer to Jibril correct?

On the death penalty, modern observant Jews cannot carry it out due to a lack of properly ordained religious teachers.

While Christians do not carry it out on religious basis as we follow the New Testament. (Carrying out death penalty on secular law basis is another matter.) After all, Jesus defused a situation where a mob demanded a woman allegedly caught in adultery be stoned to death in accordance with the Laws of Moses. Jesus concluded by telling the woman that He would not judge her, and to instead leave her life of sin.

Yes, you explain that those laws are outdated, but you also use the same passages to show that the prohibition has been around for a long time. My point is that either *all* the laws are important, or none are. If you want to argue from a solely New Testament perspective, then do so, and stop talking Old Testament.

And you miss my point, that of ALLLLLLL the multitude of Old Testament laws and prohibitions, among the few that are repeated multiple times in the New Testament are those against homosexuality.

The New Testament is incomplete, even meaningless, without the Old Testament as its foundation. For what the NT blood of Christ without the context of the OT Mosaic substitutionary sacrifice laws? For what the forgiveness of sins without the original fall of man?

At the same time, it updates and fulfills many of the Old Testament requirements. We are not Jews following Moses around the desert, we are (mostly) Gentiles following Jesus towards grace.

Failure to understand this distinction means that any argument you think you are making against me is in fact being made against a straw man.

And why not go further back to the spirit of the law, not just the letter? In my section ‘AND FROM THE BIG MAN IN THE SKY…’ I argue that just as death, suffering and all its related wrongs – murder, cruelty, violence – were not part of God’s original and perfect plan, so too was homosexuality not part of God’s plan.

Or else, as they snark, God would have made them Adam & Steve – and two men would be able to procreate together.

If, as you say, the New Testament is incomplete without the Old Testament, how is it that you can pick and choose from the laws of the Old Testament? Ah, I see. The Old Testament laws are only meaningful if somehow possibly repeated in the New. So, it’s not so much a foundation as a few stones with filler.

No, I understand your argument, but I reject it. You have not made a satisfactory statement as to why you can use one part of the Old Testament to argue your case and yet discard others.

Either the New Testament says everything you need to know on the matter (*any* matter), and you can follow it’s rules and restrictions accordingly, or it does not. If it does not, then you can’t choose what of the Old Testament to obey, you must obey it all. If it does, then the Old Testament is at best a historical reference to provide context for the New Testament.

If it does, then the Old Testament is at best a historical reference to provide context for the New Testament.

Close, this is what I mentioned above.

No, I understand your argument, but I reject it. You have not made a satisfactory statement as to why you can use one part of the Old Testament to argue your case and yet discard others.

Well my personal understanding is that we as Gentile Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Jewish laws. Instead, we are freed from them only to be bound into the Grace of Christ. What matters is not the letter of the law, but the spirit.

e.g. The Pharisees found many ways to adhere to the letter of the law (no work on the Sabbath – not even healing!) while completely neglecting the spirit of the law (the Sabbath is meant to glorify God – does leaving a person to suffer just because ‘no work on Sabbath’ achieve this?)

So why the focus on how homosexuality is forbidden, but none on other ‘obscure’ OT rules? This is where the specific mentions in the New Testament come in – we are warned many times over that unrepentant homosexual acts will bar permittance into heaven, meaning that it is considered a sin.

Like I said previously, find me even one similar warning against eating unclean animals or wearing clothes of two fabrics in the NT. Ergo, these are not considered salvation-jeapordizing sins.

In fact, I never state anywhere that “Ooooh cos the Old Testament bans it, so Christians ban it too!” That is a misunderstanding or a straw man.

Christianity has been around for 2000 years plus, and there have been countless thinkers, scholars and theologians who have studied and influenced its course. What Christians do and believe is not based on whimsy, but on two millenia of careful study – and plenty of debate and argument! If anyone wants to declare such-and-such belief or doctrine of modern Christians to be baseless, they have to first dig thru 20 centuries of work and progress that led to modern Christianity and declare it all to be bunk.

You are free to disagree on the convincingness of my rationale.

Besides, back to the topic of homosexuality, I give plenty other reasons apart from the Mosaic laws as to why homosexuality is not permitted – for example, any non-marriage sexual contact is considered wrong, and only a man and a woman can get married, ergo any sexual contact between two individuals of the same gender is by default wrong.

That one you can base purely on Jesus’s words, not even looking at the rest of the New Testament. Chuck out the entire Old Testament and everything after the four Gospels, you will still end up with homosexuality being wrong.

Totally understand Nasaei, the concept of Trinity is really hard to grasp neatly. But then again, so are many things to do with God. Try imagining that God has existed for ever and ever, with no beginning – that is already hard to grasp, since we are used to thinking of everything having been created at some point.

Scott, while I know you’re trying to explain a very complex concept by analogy, it bothers me to see concepts used incorrectly. Length, width, and depth are not space, they are measurements, or. more exactly, concepts that denote a measurement. They are not space, just as a meter is not space, it is a measurement of space.

Another analogy might be looking at an aquarium. From the front you see one view, from each of the two sides you see a different view, both from each other and from the front view. Yet you’re still looking at the same thing. You’re just seeing it in different ways.

I find this entire article extremely offensive and quite frankly, it digusts me that people still have the energy to oppose homosexuality. If you don’t like the book, don’t read it. Heck, don’t let your kids read it. Go ahead, try your utmost to make sure that your child chooses whatever YOU want them to choose, and not necessarily what THEY want to choose. (I’m sure The Bible is a much better option, huh?)
By all means, make sure you shelter your child from everything that you deem unworthy, to make sure that they grow up to be exactly the person you wanted them to be. I’m not going to tell you to let your children find their own path, because frankly, it’s none of my business.

But don’t you DARE take that opportunity away from MY children.

When I grew up, I only read books and saw movies about heterosexual couples, because nothing else was available.
I still grew up to be homosexual. And I can assure you that it was far from a conscious choice. My family is religious, and being heterosexual would have been so much easier. (Thankfully, my mother is a very loving and accepting soul, and she’s been incredibly supportive of me ever since I came out.)

There are plenty of studies that show that over 1500 different species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior – not just penguins – and it’s rather ignorant of you to still claim that homosexuality is anything but natural.

Everything is not about reproducting. I’d rather spend my life with a woman who loves me, than obsessing over having a child together – although the thought does appeal.
Raising a child is something that many adults want to do, even if they’re homosexual, and adoption has been around for decades. What about the heterosexual couples that can’t have babies? Are those people unnatural, too?
It’s not like the world NEEDS more children. But it certainly needs more loving parents to take care of the babies who are born in difficult circumstances.

I pity you for being so obviously brainwashed and blinded by whatever religious or otherwise unaccepting environment you must have grown up in. I really do. Good day.

That’s kinda one of the issues here… Books like this and others with a similar theme are being pushed onto kindergarten and school kids by their oh-so-progressive teachers. And what with the overzealous efforts against homeschooling, it’s difficult to avoid such material.

—————————–

Go ahead, try your utmost to make sure that your child chooses whatever YOU want them to choose, and not necessarily what THEY want to choose.

Uh, let’s take that argument a bit further and see where it gets us.

Playing with fire? Sticking forks in electrical outlets? Taunting rottweiler guard dogs? Skateboarding on the edge of highrise buildings?

Should we be respecting their right to do any of those things that THEY want to choose?

—————————–

(I’m sure The Bible is a much better option, huh?)

Considering how wherever the Bible and its moral code was chucked out, mass murder and atrocities occurred on a scale and depth never before seen in human history…

Uh, where did I advocate banning such books entirely? Did you even properly read my post?

Even the title of my post itself should be a dead giveaway – I am saying that the book on gay penguins is actually a HORRIBLE example for gay rights, especially when Silo ditched Roy for a female (point 5 in my post)!

I mean, a more accurate portrayal of their tale – “And Tango Makes Three, Until Silo Becomes Ex-Gay” doesn’t really strike me as the kind of storybook same sex couples would like to read to their children.

But hey, don’t you DARE take that opportunity away from THEIR children right?

—————————–

There are plenty of studies that show that over 1500 different species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior – not just penguins – and it’s rather ignorant of you to still claim that homosexuality is anything but natural.

As I have explained in an earlier comment, there are two meanings of ‘natural’ that are getting confused here.

One is the meaning you are using above, i.e. natural = no human involvement.

However I am using the other meaning, i.e. natural = the way it is normally supposed to be.

Let me explain with an example: Snakes with two heads appear in the wild. No human influence was involved. So are two-headed snakes ‘natural’?

YES in that it wasn’t human influence that caused the random mutation of having two heads.

But also NO in that snakes are not supposed to have two heads.

So what I am saying is that homosexual preference is ‘not natural’, in that homosexuality is not the way it is supposed to be even in the wild – the simple proof being that two animals of the same gender cannot mate and produce viable offspring. If they did not ‘cheat’ and mate with the opposite gender, their genes would not be passed on to the next generation – wherefore then is ‘purely genetically determined’ homosexuality?

And animals also have been observed having sex with dead bodies and other species. Should humans be doing these ‘natural’ things too? Or are you some sort of bigoted necrohobe and zoophobe?

—————————–

What about the heterosexual couples that can’t have babies? Are those people unnatural, too?

If you’ve just read my preceding response above, yes, I also hold that such a heterosexual couple’s situation is not natural, meaning that in ideal circumstances they should be able to bear children.

Whereas even in the most ideal and functionally perfect circumstances, a homosexual couple CANNOT have children with just one another.

And yes, to answer your following remark, life isn’t all about procreating… But THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF LIFE is.

—————————–

It’s not like the world NEEDS more children. But it certainly needs more loving parents to take care of the babies who are born in difficult circumstances.

Without fail, almost every advocate for homosexuality commenting on my blog – especially on this very page! – will throw out this argument.

The problem is that it is defeated by the actions of homosexual couples themselves, who rather than adopt needy children, prefer to find surrogate parents so that the resulting child will have the genes of at least one of the homosexual couple.

It’s like they have some deep, instinctive NEED to pass on their genes that purely-homosexual pairings just can’t fulfil, even in perfectly ideal circumstances…

Or like I put it bluntly, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT NATURAL.

And as for ‘loving parents’ and ‘difficult circumstances’… Compared to traditional marriages, homosexual couples have domestic violence 3000% greater, cheating 19 times higher, and 85% of partnerings don’t last past 11 years.

This contributes to children raised by such couples having higher rates of poverty, health problems, crime and even smoking habits.

Homosexual men also have a 44 times greater HIV contraction rate compared other men (60 times greater than the general population), with 72% of all HIV-positive men having contracted it through homosexual activity. They also have 33 to 50 times higher rate of syphylis infection.

Great role models for the kids, surely… If they live long enough to be role models, I mean.

ST: “Considering how wherever the Bible and its moral code was chucked out, mass murder and atrocities occurred on a scale and depth never before seen in human history…”

Which moral code are we talking about? That of Levitcus? Or that of Jesus? They are very different. I think it could easily be argued that Jesus taught tolerance, which you don’t seem to believe in, nor is it what the religious right in my country believe. And which atrocities are we talking about? What about those of the Catholic Church and the Inquisition? What about the Midianites? Murders are committed even now in the name of Christ, so I have trouble believing that your statement “wherever the Bible and its moral code was chucked out, mass murder and atrocities occurred on a scale and depth never before seen in human history” is meaningful.

The problem for you and the religious right, it seems to me, isn’t that homosexuality is right or wrong, or even whether it’s normal or not normal. You simply don’t want it around because you believe your God says it’s wrong.

Now, why do homosexual men have greater instance of disease? Perhaps it’s because society as a whole has not been willing to tolerate them. They’ve been vilified, outcast, and bullied. Maybe the cause isn’t the homosexuality, but the lack of tolerance of others toward homosexuality that causes gay men to stay hidden, Fear of reprisals cause these same men to not share problems with their doctor. Having many partners could also be attributed to feeling the need to stay hidden. There is nothing intrinsically more dangerous in homosexual sex than in heterosexual sex, assuming normal hygiene. Higher incidence of eating disorders, depression, suicide, addiction… again, not intrinsically because of being gay, but because society has not yet fully accepted homosexuality.

Is homosexuality normal? According to current psychiatric methods the answer is simple. Yes.

But instead of using psychiatry, let’s come at it from a different way.

Just exactly how many individuals in a population need to exhibit a trait before it becomes normal in your rules? I grant a two-headed snake isn’t normal. But then, the percentage of two-headed snakes in the total population of the species would have an incidence rate so low as to be statistically insignificant. In the United States, the percentage of homosexuals within the population seems to be about 3.5%, a number which is statistically significant. Interestingly enough, one study found that 18% (18%!) of women don’t want to have even one child. By your standards, 18% of the female population in the United States is not normal.

You don’t get to make up your own rules as to what is natural and what is not natural. That isn’t the way science works.

Is homosexuality normal? Well, when a trait appears consistently in around 3.5% of a population, yes, it is considered normal.

I don’t know where you live, and honestly, I don’t care. If getting permission for home schooling is difficult, I’m all for it, because, generally, home schooled children don’t get reasonable classes in science, and usually not math, as well. That happens for a number of reasons, One is because generally the parents don’t actually have the knowledge to teach the subject, but usually it’s simpler: the parent doesn’t want the child exposed to accepted scientific methods and theories.

And yes, going to a public school means the child gets exposed to things the parent may not agree with. So what? Teach the child what you believe, and teach the child that he or she needs to understand what others believe and to know the difference. If you can’t do that, then your faith must not be very strong.

But if it really matters to you, then you’ll find a way. It certainly isn’t that difficult in the U.S.A.

I think it could easily be argued that Jesus taught tolerance, which you don’t seem to believe in

Eh, you sure you want to debate Bible knowledge with me?

Cite me where Jesus ‘taught tolerance’. As I know, what He taught was rejection of sin in favor of repentance – ‘tolerating’ sin was not in His vocabulary.

What Jesus did teach is the following: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife” (Mark 10:7). Note that there is no mention of a man being united to ‘his husband’ there.

How odd, the same ‘tolerant’ revolutionary who forbade sinful discrimination on the basis of gender, class or physical condition didn’t use that clear opportunity to preach acceptance of different sexual orientations. It’s like He agreed with the prevailing Old Testament view that homosexuality is wrong or something.

In fact, cite why you say I ‘don’t seem to believe’ in tolerance. Do I fling slurs and hate against homosexuals? Do I advocate locking them all up, or even recommend voting against gay marriage?

Empty slander is what you’re doing.

————————-

And which atrocities are we talking about? What about those of the Catholic Church and the Inquisition? What about the Midianites? Murders are committed even now in the name of Christ, so I have trouble believing that your statement “wherever the Bible and its moral code was chucked out, mass murder and atrocities occurred on a scale and depth never before seen in human history” is meaningful.

You didn’t even click the link provided with that remark, did you? Admit it. The horrors I list at that link far outweight and outpace anything the church ever did – in fact, everything that every religion combined ever did in all human history!

————————-

The problem for you and the religious right, it seems to me, isn’t that homosexuality is right or wrong, or even whether it’s normal or not normal. You simply don’t want it around because you believe your God says it’s wrong.

Can’t argue there, it’s probably the main reason we say it’s wrong. Although I did cite tons of health and societal negatives stemming from homosexuality.

————————-

Now, why do homosexual men have greater instance of disease? Perhaps it’s because society as a whole has not been willing to tolerate them.

Nope. In societies where they are fully accepted, with full-rights gay marriage, they still have exceedinly high instances of partner abuse, cheating and disease.

—A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.

…

The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.

…

A study of steady and casual male homosexual relationships in Amsterdam found that “steady partners contribute to (HIV) incidence more than casual partners. This can mainly be explained by the fact that risky behavior with steady partners is much greater than that with casual partners (30 versus 1.5 UAI [unprotected anal intercourse] acts annually).”

…

These findings confirmed an earlier study by the Dutch Department of Health and Environment, which found that 67 percent of HIV-positive men aged 30 and younger had been infected by a steady partner. The study concluded: “In recent years, young gay men have become more likely to contract HIV from a steady sexual partner than from a casual one.”—

————————-

Having many partners could also be attributed to feeling the need to stay hidden.

And here silly me thought it was because gay men embrace the swinger, unprotected sex culture.

—In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive.

Yet two large population surveys showed that most gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners per year as straight men and women.—

Simply put, the vagina is evolved/designed for penile insertion, with thick and flexible walls (it can stretch to accomodate childbirth). The anus and rectum are not – the walls are thin, easily damaged, and highly succeptible to infection by, say, HIV.

Which biologist or medical doctor would argue that the anus is for letting hard and ungentle things IN, rather than letting soft squishy things OUT?

————————-

Just exactly how many individuals in a population need to exhibit a trait before it becomes normal in your rules?

You misunderstand ‘my rules’. I don’t go by the ‘majority’ or ‘consensus’.

You can have an entire population in a village – or heck, an entire nation – who have inbred genetic abberations such as ostritch feet (Ectrodactyly). That still does not make it ‘normal’ in my book, because that is not how it is supposed to be. With ideal genetic randomization, they would have normal feet – which is proven when they procreate with outsiders who have normal (ideal) genes, the offspring have normal feet.

————————

You don’t get to make up your own rules as to what is natural and what is not natural. That isn’t the way science works.

What hypocrisy and projection!

Who is making up what is natural here? You tell me how homosexuality can be purely genetic and not become extinct when two creatures of the same gender cannot procreate and pass down their genes for homosexual preference.

What exactly is the natural, evolutionary strategy with homosexuality here???

————————

If getting permission for home schooling is difficult, I’m all for it, because, generally, home schooled children don’t get reasonable classes in science, and usually not math, as well.

So you demand acceptance of people’s free choice when it comes to homosexuality despite its proven negatives… But you cheerfully accept it when the free choice of home schoolers is restricted due to its own negatives?

How are you not just as bigoted and discriminatory and fascistic as the anti-homosexual lobby that you deride?

————————-

but usually it’s simpler: the parent doesn’t want the child exposed to accepted scientific methods and theories.

Have you actually looked at the crappy state of US public education lately?

Jesus taught the the second most important commandment was love. He taught that you can’t help the others unless you first recognized your own flaws, and he taught that you should not condemn others for what you perceive as sin.

Taken together, yes, I think those things teach tolerance.

“It’s like He agreed with the prevailing Old Testament view that homosexuality is wrong or something.”

There are lots of things he didn’t say, or that there is no record of him saying, for or against. Do you really want to argue that if he didn’t come out for or against a particular law in the old testament that he agreed with it?

“…cite why you say I ‘don’t seem to believe’ in tolerance.”

Okay, you said:

“Books like this and others with a similar theme are being pushed onto kindergarten and school kids by their oh-so-progressive teachers.”

So, instead of letting children hear what is essentially a lesson in letting others be what they want to be and live the life they want to live, you want to censor what can be taught. Now, you might have a reasonable argument if the book was teaching about serial killing being a great lifestyle, but books like these are teaching about a different — and legal — lifestyle that isn’t harming anyone. (Though I’m sure you’ll disagree with that assessment)

On atrocities:

“You didn’t even click the link provided with that remark, did you?”

Nope I didn’t. But there’s nothing on your list that I wasn’t already aware of. Still, if the number killed isn’t as large, it’s not because the Christians didn’t try.

Pre-christianity, the followers of your God destroyed the entire Midianite nation. They killed the men, women and boys, and saved the girls to be raped.

Christianity tried to wipe out (and pretty much succeeded) the ancient pagans.

Charlemagne had 4500 Saxons beheaded because they wouldn’t convert to Christianity.

But that’s small potatoes to the crusades, where the number killed is estimated to be over 20 million. (See: H.Wollschlger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zrich 1973.)

In 1572 in France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V.

In 1942-1943 in Croatia there were numerous extermination camps run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli. While some victims were simply shot, others were burned alive in kilns. The estimated number of victims is between 300,000 and 600,000.

There are a bunch of other examples, but you should get the point.

Let’s move on to your talk of mental health and disease in homosexuals in the Netherlands. You said:

“The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.”

which sounds pretty damning, until you actually read how that particular study was conducted, and what the study was actually studying. First, monogamous couples were explicitly excluded due to the nature of the study. Next, none of the men in the study were over the age of thirty, which limits just how long any potential partnering could have lasted. (And, by the way, none of the participants considered themselves married, because the study ended two years before homosexual marriage was legal in the Netherlands.) Since the study excluded older men and monogamous couples, the average of eight sexual partners per year is at best too high for gay men in general, and is probably far too high.

The study was trying to create a mathematical model that would predict how HIV and AIDS would spread among gay men.

Finally, you’re relying on a single study. Even if that study really did say what you think it does (which it doesn’t), you need more than a single study to prove results scientifically. Wait, you do mention a second study, but don’t cite it.

And if you’re trying to prove that a majority of gay men embrace a “swinger” subculture by your “bugchasing” link, then you probably ought to try again, since that link certainly doesn’t prove that.

Now, did I say that homosexuality was purely genetic? I did not.

Are you sure you want to argue science with me?

What I said was that it is a normal part of the human population. How can I say it’s normal when it can’t lead to progeny? Simple. It exists now in statistically significant numbers. If it is not normal, then eventually it will select out and disappear.

But here’s the problem. We don’t just have a few gay men and women, we have a lot of them. And the population of homosexuals doesn’t seem to be dwindling. And we have evidence of homosexuality in other animals, again in statistically significant numbers. Just because I don’t know what the advantage is to the larger population for some members to be homosexual doesn’t mean that advantage doesn’t exist.

“You misunderstand ‘my rules’. I don’t go by the ‘majority’ or ‘consensus’.”

Oh, so you make your own rules that have nothing to do with science. Well, if you make up your own rules, then I can’t dispute them, because you can change them to fit whatever argument you choose.

I said that there is nothing intrinsically more dangerous in homosexual sex than in heterosexual sex, assuming normal hygiene.

And you said “Bad science” and then went on to do a lot of talking about HIV. Okay, look up the word “intrinsic”, then maybe you’ll understand that your argument of HIV means nothing in that context.

It’s a much better argument to say that anal sex is more dangerous, and while I disagree, because anal sex can be performed safely (or so I’m told), there is at least some validity to the argument that the anus and it’s tissues are more delicate than the vagina. On the other hand, I also understand that there are heterosexual partners who enjoy anal sex, so condemning it because it is a homosexual act isn’t valid.

“So you demand acceptance of people’s free choice when it comes to homosexuality despite its proven negatives… But you cheerfully accept it when the free choice of home schoolers is restricted due to its own negatives?”

Note that I did not say that home schooling should be forbidden, I said getting permission to home school should be difficult.

I will gladly allow any parent who wishes to home school to do so if each state that allows home schooling develops a test which every student (home school, parochial school, private schools, public schools, and any other type of schooling I’ve missed) — again a test *every* student — must pass before being awarded a high school degree. That test must include a basic knowledge of science, including evolution and origin theories, mathematics, English, and history. I don’t care what else home schoolers teach, but leaving out basic science because you don’t agree with it is wrong if that student wants a high school degree.

If you’re claiming that me insisting that home schoolers teach basic science is restricting them, then yes, I am for restricting them if they want their child to earn a high school degree. That degree should come with requirements, and every person who gets that degree should be forced to complete those requirements. If you, as a home schooler, don’t want to teach the basic science, then don’t. But your child won’t get a high school degree either.

So, if you want to handicap your child and not get them a high school degree, that’s up to you. Makes it harder on the child to get a decent job, but I don’t really care — you can do what you want. I just insist that those getting a high school degree have a basic understanding in all the basic subject matters.

(By the way, you can leave out links to highly biased sources like the FRC. I won’t bother to look at them simply because I know they will be highly biased.)

Jesus taught the the second most important commandment was love. He taught that you can’t help the others unless you first recognized your own flaws, and he taught that you should not condemn others for what you perceive as sin.

Taken together, yes, I think those things teach tolerance.

I have come across these sort of arguments often enough to dedicate a post to them:

You’re basically right on Matthew 22:39-40 to say that the second most important is to love (your neighbor, i.e. fellow mankind). But as you admit by your omission, the first greatest is to ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ Hence one should not ignore or even encourage that which God has specifically forbidden.

As for condemning others for what we ‘perceive as sin’, the various passages actually forbid hypocrisy (e.g.You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. – Luke 6:42)

Jesus Himself spoke strongly against sin, in fact His standards are exceedingly strict – no even considering to commit a sin! (But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. – Matthew 5:28)

——————————–

There are lots of things he didn’t say, or that there is no record of him saying, for or against. Do you really want to argue that if he didn’t come out for or against a particular law in the old testament that he agreed with it?

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. – Matthew 5:17

Jesus overturned many prevailing views on God’s standards regarding cleanliness, the Sabbath, etc. – we thus can assume that the people of the time were ‘doing it wrong’. So by that same token, whatever beleif or practise Jesus did not specifically overturn we can assume to have been in correct interpretation.

And as I mention, Jesus had the PERFECT OPPORTUNITY to overturn the prevailing views on homosexuality if what was assumed by the people at the time was WRONG. Yet He didn’t.

We have to conclude something from that.

——————————–

So, instead of letting children hear what is essentially a lesson in letting others be what they want to be and live the life they want to live, you want to censor what can be taught.

That is purely your ASSUMPTION.

Nowhere do I advocate banning such books. Instead, my post is about how pro-homosexual groups ought to be thinking twice about using Roy & Silo as an inspirational story, when the reality is far removed from the fable.

The most you can reasonably claim is that I am intolerant for not fully and unequivocally embracing and encouraging such books.

Hence your accusation above reveals more about your own prejudices and bigoted, narrow field of vision than mine.

——————————–

Now, you might have a reasonable argument if the book was teaching about serial killing being a great lifestyle, but books like these are teaching about a different — and legal — lifestyle that isn’t harming anyone. (Though I’m sure you’ll disagree with that assessment)

Correct, as you should have surmised from my earlier citations, I hold that homosexuality carries various risks and negative effects.

Yes, alleged religious prejudicial beliefs like ‘women are inferior’ or ‘no heretics allowed’ get discarded… But so do basics like ‘Thou shall not murder’ and ‘Love thy neighbor’. As history shows, every time ‘bad, old-fashioned religion’ is rejected, the negatives grossly outweighed the positives.

Perhaps you could say that the irreligious and religious both had their bouts of murderous rampage – but the irreligious were magnitudes more efficient at it. What a feather in their cap.

To which I could respond with the old ‘No true Scotsman’ line – if they really held to Jesus’ teachings, they wouldn’t have gone around converting at the point of a sword (inclusive of any political, factional or other motivating factors).

———————————

Finally, you’re relying on a single study. Even if that study really did say what you think it does (which it doesn’t), you need more than a single study to prove results scientifically. Wait, you do mention a second study, but don’t cite it.

I suppose I could go dig up some more studies, so you have your point there.

———————————

Now, did I say that homosexuality was purely genetic? I did not.

Are you sure you want to argue science with me?

Touche. But that is beside the point, because the non-viability of passing down the genes – whether they be the sole cause or not – is a huge minus by my count.

And to use your own response, Yeah, actually I think I do.

———————————

Just because I don’t know what the advantage is to the larger population for some members to be homosexual doesn’t mean that advantage doesn’t exist.

There is that other possibility – that it is a disadvantage like hereditary deformities. Or perhaps a combination of advantages and disadvantages, as with sickle cell anemia possibly offering resistance against malaria.

———————————

Oh, so you make your own rules that have nothing to do with science. Well, if you make up your own rules, then I can’t dispute them, because you can change them to fit whatever argument you choose.

Okay, this was my failing – you brought up the word ‘rules’, and I carelessly used it.

I should rather have said ‘definition’.

——————————–

that I did not say that home schooling should be forbidden, I said getting permission to home school should be difficult.

All right, just as you assumed I want a ban on books like ‘And Tango Makes Three’, I mistakenly assumed you are all-in against home schooling, because you said it should be ‘difficult’ to get permission to homeschool.

That is a strong and open-ended word.

Hey, here’s a notion based on that – how about being all for making homosexual relations ‘difficult’? How does that sound? At the very least, make it harder for them to get together – give them a different, unequal, higher bar to hurdle than for heterosexual relations.

Like, make them sign binding agreements not to bareback or have more than one partner at any one time. Compulsory STD tests every month.

There shouldn’t be any objections to the above, right? It’s not like we’d be forbidding homosexuality… Just making it ‘difficult’ for them with lots of ‘restrictions’.

——————————–

I just insist that those getting a high school degree have a basic understanding in all the basic subject matters.

Fair enough.

So as long as home-schooled students understand and fully grasp oh so useful and work-applicable fully-government-approved school concepts and subject material as fuzzy math, ‘no books, no tests’, Howard Zinn historical revisionism/exclusions…

Hey, here’s an idea, let’s hold public schooling to the same standards as home schooling.

——————————–

(By the way, you can leave out links to highly biased sources like the FRC. I won’t bother to look at them simply because I know they will be highly biased.)

“… the first greatest is to ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ Hence one should not ignore or even encourage that which God has specifically forbidden.”

The bible says that love is gentle, kind, and does not dishonor others. I’m sure you know the verses. So, to love your neighbor means to treat them gently and with kindness, and not to dishonor them. All of those things are what a tolerant person does.

“As for condemning others for what we ‘perceive as sin’, the various passages actually forbid hypocrisy (e.g.You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. – Luke 6:42) ”

Uh, that’s not how I read it. I read it not as primarily a condemnation of hypocrisy, but that you can’t help others until you’ve helped yourself. At least one translation I’ve read doesn’t even use the word “hypocrite”. One would be a hypocrite because he or she couldn’t see that their own need to resolve their sins, but that’s not the point of the verse. My reference bible doesn’t have a comment on it, but I’ve *never* heard that verse taught in a way that makes the hypocrisy the point of the verse.

As for what Jesus taught, absolutely, he was very much against sin. But he was also kind to individuals.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. – Matthew 5:17

“Jesus overturned many prevailing views on God’s standards regarding cleanliness, the Sabbath, etc. – we thus can assume that the people of the time were ‘doing it wrong’. So by that same token, whatever beleif or practise Jesus did not specifically overturn we can assume to have been in correct interpretation.”

Fine, but we — or rather you — have a problem, because you also said:

“Well my personal understanding is that we as Gentile Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Jewish laws. Instead, we are freed from them only to be bound into the Grace of Christ. What matters is not the letter of the law, but the spirit.”

So, which statement would you like to retract? They certainly aren’t compatible. Either the laws of the old testament — all of them — are valid and correct in interpretation and therefore need to be followed, or they aren’t and can be ignored.

“Yes, alleged religious prejudicial beliefs like ‘women are inferior’ or ‘no heretics allowed’ get discarded… But so do basics like ‘Thou shall not murder’ and ‘Love thy neighbor’. As history shows, every time ‘bad, old-fashioned religion’ is rejected, the negatives grossly outweighed the positives.”

If you do a tiny bit of research, you’ll find that killing and torturing in the name of Christianity has been happening almost constantly in varying degrees and numbers for at least the last 1600 years.

Do bad things happen with some despot throws out the bible? Yes. But they also happen just as often because of the bible.

There are numerous occasions when people killed in the name of Christ. I provided examples. I pointed out that if practitioners didn’t kill as many people, that it wasn’t because they were trying to keep the numbers they killed low, it’s simply because they didn’t have the ability to kill in as far reaching a manner.

Religious laws — biblical laws — have been used to justify killing and torture in so many cases that we’ll never know the true number of deaths. The men who did these things were no less evil than those who didn’t bother to use Christianity to justify their murders.

So, my point isn’t that you are wrong, exactly, just that you aren’t presenting both sides. Yes, people threw out Christianity and did bad things. But yes, people used Christianity to justify bad things.

“There is that other possibility – that it is a disadvantage like hereditary deformities. Or perhaps a combination of advantages and disadvantages, as with sickle cell anemia possibly offering resistance against malaria.”

Sure, and all of them are natural.

“I should rather have said ‘definition’.”

And I would have argued just as strenuously. In science, you don’t get to make up your own definitions, you don’t get to make up your own rules. In science, we use the best current knowledge we have to justify what we say, whether we’re justifying a definition, theory, or any other part of science. These things don’t happen in isolation, and you can’t create your own definition of what is biologically natural and expect me to accept it.

“All right, just as you assumed I want a ban on books like ‘And Tango Makes Three’, I mistakenly assumed you are all-in against home schooling, because you said it should be ‘difficult’ to get permission to homeschool.

“That is a strong and open-ended word.

“Hey, here’s a notion based on that – how about being all for making homosexual relations ‘difficult’? How does that sound? At the very least, make it harder for them to get together – give them a different, unequal, higher bar to hurdle than for heterosexual relations.”

I never said nor implied that you wanted the book banned. I believed before and believe now that you want it censored and not available in public school classrooms. You have said nothing yet to make me believe otherwise.

(And, by the way, I specifically used the word “censored” in my last reply, not the word “ban” or “banned”.)

And I withdrew my objection to home schooling in my last reply, as well, as long as certain standards are set for all students receiving a high school degree from the state.

As for making it difficult for homosexuals — well, you’re trying to equate two very dissimilar situations. As far as I’m concerned, what consenting adults do between themselves is up to them, not me, and should not be regulated by the state. But if a parent expects a child to receive a high school degree from the state, then that child should have a basic knowledge and grasp of the various subjects I mentioned earlier.

“So as long as home-schooled students understand and fully grasp oh so useful and work-applicable fully-government-approved school concepts and subject material as fuzzy math, ‘no books, no tests’, Howard Zinn historical revisionism/exclusions…”

None of which I said. What I was talking about was not “fuzzy math” whatever you mean by that, but serious mathematics. I’d really like to say that no student should graduate high school without two years of algebra, but that’s probably impossible in the current educational system. But a basic understanding of physics, biology and chemistry, a basic understanding of mathematics, a basic understanding of history, and basic competency in reading and writing should be required. Oh and an understanding of the scientific method, but that should be covered in physics/biology/chemistry.

That’s not really too much to cover in four years of high school.

Now, are those things useful in the adult life? Without going into detail, yes. There’s very little that one would learn at such a basic level that would not have some application within your life.

The more you know about a certain subject, the more likely you are to be able to apply it to what is going on around you.

Most importantly it lets one understand the vocabulary of science. If you don’t know the vocabulary, then you can’t make a reasoned determination about what is being said.

“Hey, here’s an idea, let’s hold public schooling to the same standards as home schooling.”

I think I said that in my last reply. No, really, I’m sure I did. Oh yeah, here’s what I said:

…if each state that allows home schooling develops a test which every student (home school, parochial school, private schools, public schools, and any other type of schooling I’ve missed) — again a test *every* student — must pass before being awarded a high school degree.

The bible says that love is gentle, kind, and does not dishonor others. I’m sure you know the verses. So, to love your neighbor means to treat them gently and with kindness, and not to dishonor them. All of those things are what a tolerant person does.

So again I ask, please, show me where in my post about the self-defeating act of using Roy & Silo as role models for human homosexuality I reveal my propensity for Westboro-ish methods.

In fact, the bulk of our comments have drifted off into all sorts of peripheral topics, which is actually how it usually goes down.

———————————–

Uh, that’s not how I read it. I read it not as primarily a condemnation of hypocrisy, but that you can’t help others until you’ve helped yourself.

Well the way I read it, it’s a combination of both.

————————————-

So, which statement would you like to retract? They certainly aren’t compatible. Either the laws of the old testament — all of them — are valid and correct in interpretation and therefore need to be followed, or they aren’t and can be ignored.

Neither, in this case of false dilemma.

Jesus fulfilled many of the ritualistic OT laws – the most egregious of them being the repititive animal sacrifices to absolve ourselves of sin. We are now bound to follow the spirit of those laws, rather than the letter – which is actually very easy to ‘weasel’ around if one tries, e.g. Nikah mut’ah whereby Muslims can bypass the no-extramarital sex letter of the law by being married for about as long as is needed to do the dirty.

Jesus Himself provided the precendent as you yourself cited with ‘The greatest commandment’, instead of citing any actual particular OT law or commandment.

I admit my depth of knowledge on this subject is comparatively lacking – I have not yet delved into the 2000 years of reasoning behind why so-and-so OT laws are still upheld by the churches.

————————————–

So, my point isn’t that you are wrong, exactly, just that you aren’t presenting both sides. Yes, people threw out Christianity and did bad things. But yes, people used Christianity to justify bad things.

Whereas my counterpoint was that these people did evil in spite of what Christianity really teaches. On the other hand, when religious law is chucked out in favour of human judgment, there’s nothing to say that killing 1 million if it (hopefully) leads to a better existence for 2 million is fundamentally immoral.

————————————–

Sure, and all of them are natural.

Natural according to definition 1, not natural according to definition 2.

—————————————

And I would have argued just as strenuously. In science, you don’t get to make up your own definitions, you don’t get to make up your own rules. In science, we use the best current knowledge we have to justify what we say, whether we’re justifying a definition, theory, or any other part of science. These things don’t happen in isolation, and you can’t create your own definition of what is biologically natural and expect me to accept it.

Wait… Am I getting this right that you are saying I make up my own science when I say that Darwinistic evolution as enabled by sexual reproduction does not lend towards homosexuality, or that Harlequin ichthyosis doesn’t suit survival of the fittest?

—————————————

I never said nor implied that you wanted the book banned. I believed before and believe now that you want it censored and not available in public school classrooms. You have said nothing yet to make me believe otherwise.

Allright, given that you said specifically that I want to censor what can be taught. And the practical difference is… ?

On the note of guilt by non-mention (I forget the actual logical fallcy’s name), you have said nothing yet to make me believe you don’t support the replacement of all body extremities with bright green plastic prostheses.

—————————————

None of which I said. What I was talking about was not “fuzzy math” whatever you mean by that, but serious mathematics. I’d really like to say that no student should graduate high school without two years of algebra, but that’s probably impossible in the current educational system. But a basic understanding of physics, biology and chemistry, a basic understanding of mathematics, a basic understanding of history, and basic competency in reading and writing should be required. Oh and an understanding of the scientific method, but that should be covered in physics/biology/chemistry.

Which is my point, in that with all the junk being foisted on students in state-approved schools these days, it’s not really that much an improvement (if at all!) when a homeschooled student enters the public school system.

Say, what was America’s global ranking in school math and etc again?

And what does the example of a penguin family (an inaccurate example, as I demonstrated) have to do with any of that?

Now, charter and private schools on the other hand…

—————————————-

I think I said that in my last reply. No, really, I’m sure I did. Oh yeah, here’s what I said:

…if each state that allows home schooling develops a test which every student (home school, parochial school, private schools, public schools, and any other type of schooling I’ve missed) — again a test *every* student — must pass before being awarded a high school degree.

Missing the point. Here it is rephrased:

Hey, let’s be as rabidly critical and scrutinizing of the massively failing, bloated, taxmonies-wasting public school system as we are of the comparatively miniscule number of homeschoolers who – come to think of it – aren’t doing such a bad job really.

(The above is not necessarily referring to you in particular)

—————————————

This is all actually just for snarks really. I fully support your notion that students from all schools should be subjected to the same standards and controls.

And I actually don’t support the banning or even censoring of books like ‘And Tango Makes Three’ from kindergartens and schools (though my personal sensitivities stop short of material like ‘One Teenager in Ten’).

This is far longer than I intended it to be, but, take heart, it’s probably my last reply.

—

“So by that same token, whatever beleif or practise Jesus did not specifically overturn we can assume to have been in correct interpretation.”

“Well my personal understanding is that we as Gentile Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Jewish laws. Instead, we are freed from them only to be bound into the Grace of Christ. What matters is not the letter of the law, but the spirit.”

So Christians must follow the spirit of the law(s). So, the laws are, at least in general, valid, and perhaps one doesn’t need to follow the exact law itself, but only the spirit of the law.

How does one follow the spirit of the law and still cut cut the hair on your temples and cut your beard?

…and not put an adulterer to death?

…and not put a practicing male homosexual to death?

…and not stone an admitted medium or fortuneteller?

…and not stone a blasphemer?

Is it within the spirit of the law to sell my daughter into slavery, or is that what a dowry is for?

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. – Matthew 5:17”

I will grant that by the above statement Jesus believe homosexuality is wrong. However, if he came to fulfill the laws, then homosexuals are no different from adulterers, fortunetellers, and blasphemers, and all should be put to death.

Look, the laws are no longer followed because they were written over 2000 years ago and the laws of that time and most of them don’t really make any sense now. If one were to try to follow those laws literally, that person would be just as radical and just as dangerous as any member of the Taliban. We know more now, and as such, should be more willing to accept more.

—

“Wait… Am I getting this right that you are saying I make up my own science when I say that Darwinistic evolution as enabled by sexual reproduction does not lend towards homosexuality, or that Harlequin ichthyosis doesn’t suit survival of the fittest?”

No, I’m saying that you aren’t allowed to make up your own definitions for scientific tenets.

—

“Whereas my counterpoint was that these people did evil in spite of what Christianity really teaches. On the other hand, when religious law is chucked out in favour of human judgment, there’s nothing to say that killing 1 million if it (hopefully) leads to a better existence for 2 million is fundamentally immoral.”

So, it’s bad to kill people in the name of Christianity, but somehow worse if you’re not Christian? Or is it the other way around? I can’t tell. It doesn’t really matter.

You’re trying to say there’s a fundamental difference between people who torture and kill in the name of Christianity, and people who are non-Christian. It seems it’s worse if non-Christian because human judgement is fallible, and could thereby make immoral decisions.

So, if I’m killed by the Catholic Church because I won’t repent, that is somehow more “moral” than if I killed because the current secular regime doesn’t like me?

Both are immoral. Both are equally bad. Both are using power to do evil. From an outsider’s point of view, there’s no way to choose one over the other.

Every despot has his or her (usually his) reasons for what he is doing, and those reasons seem perfectly valid, and, more importantly, *moral*, to themselves.

If you value Christian morality, it’s easy to say that the Christians were doing evil in spite of what Christianity teaches. On the other hand, Vlad the Impaler was worse, because he wasn’t Christian and was acting without any morals whatsoever.

People who call themselves followers of Christ have killed and continue to kill, ignoring (or so you say) the teachings of the Church. Yet the ones who choose a different moral path might be worse, because they have chucked out all the teaching of morality for 2000 years.

What really bugs me about this is that I doubt you’ll ever admit to seeing that there is no real difference between the two.

—

Banning/Censoring books. I’m going to give you this one. At least in one sense. When I hear the word “ban” I tend to think of it as not allowing anyone to own or read the book, even adults. Censoring, in the context of schools, usually means to me that only a subset of students will be able to view the book if it is owned by the school system. In the context I was using the words, they were interchangeable. I was wrong.

I still think the book should be available to appropriate age groups within schools, but that’s another issue.

—

“Which is my point, in that with all the junk being foisted on students in state-approved schools these days, it’s not really that much an improvement (if at all!) when a homeschooled student enters the public school system.

“Say, what was America’s global ranking in school math and etc again?”

While I don’t believe that public schools are entirely to blame, there are certainly problems. However, my graduated from a public high school something over a year ago, so I do have some knowledge of what goes on. I also have a close friend who was a teacher, so I know what goes on from that point of view as well.

And I see the problem being just as much with parents as with the school system. Parents continually vote down taxes that will help improve the schools, parents who feel their child is somehow entitled to grades that child didn’t earn, parents who simply ignore everything the child is doing in school until the child starts failing.

If people want good schools then they need to commit to making those schools good schools by giving the schools the revenue they need. If they want their children to do well, then they need to know what’s going on with their children, help them or get them help before they start failing, and simply be involved.

The schools can’t fix themselves without help from the public.

And what does the example of a penguin family (an inaccurate example, as I demonstrated) have to do with any of that?”

Absolutely nothing. I said don’t read the book which led to you complaining about the difficulty of being allowed to home school which led, eventually, to me saying I didn’t care who home schooled as long as certain requirements were met. The you complained that public schools were bad, and I answered that by what I believe would help make them better (immediately above).

Basically, you: Public schools bad, home schooling good.

Me: Public schools maybe okay, home schooling maybe okay.

Or at least that’s how I read it. 🙂

—

One or two other points before I go. (And this time, I think I really mean it — I may read your reply, but I think it’s actually pretty useless to continue this or any discussion related to this.)

I never said you would use Westboro Church methods, though I did say I felt you were intolerant. There are a number of gradiations between. But perhaps I was wrong. If you are truly neutral toward gay marriage, as you say somewhere in this set of posts, then I’ll grant that you are tolerant.

I do believe that you often err in fact checking — the Dutch study being one case in particular — and that you use some very unreliable religious sites to provide information that is skewed. I’m not saying you need to use liberal sites, but it’s also worth digging down far enough to see what the facts actually are. I found the unbiased information on the Dutch Study relatively quickly. Other things, such as I mentioned in an earlier discussion where you stated that California was going to ban certain colors of cars — well, there’s nothing that bugs me more than someone telling me something is a fact that I can easily disprove.

Christian is not necessarily equal to good, and secular is not necessarily equal to bad. (Damned to hell, but that’s so easy to do that it can’t make a person evil.)

As for me, it’s simple. We make choices here that try to balance freedom and safety. If, as you propose, male homosexuality is dangerous, then we’ve made the choice to allow it to ensure that freedom is maximized for all, even if it does make the world slightly more dangerous for others. It’s no different than setting speed limits — it’s a balance.

Now, if you’ll tell me how to remove my email address from this thing, you won’t hear from me again.

How does one follow the spirit of the law and still cut cut the hair on your temples and cut your beard?

Love God, love mankind. That is the spirit. All else is the letter.

A lot of the OT laws are unusual and obscure, until you place them as spiritual typications. Why no mixing of fabrics? It is a reminder not to mix the holy with the unholy.

——————-

However, if he came to fulfill the laws, then homosexuals are no different from adulterers, fortunetellers, and blasphemers, and all should be put to death.

I think we have a different understanding of ‘fulfill’ here.

It’s not that Jesus came to carry out the Law, by punishing all sinners for their evil – He Himself satisfies the Law, by being punished on behalf of all sinners!

——————-

No, I’m saying that you aren’t allowed to make up your own definitions for scientific tenets.

I’ll put this whole nonsense about definitions of ‘normal’ to rest – let’s take your understanding that if a large enough proportion of the population is that way, that makes it normal.

Well let’s take 100% of the population being purely homosexual. The species dies out within a few generations, to the last individual.

How’s that for normal?

——————-

So, it’s bad to kill people in the name of Christianity, but somehow worse if you’re not Christian? Or is it the other way around? I can’t tell. It doesn’t really matter.

Uh, no, I am saying that one is like telling people “Don’t punch old ladies!” and some people still go and punch old ladies (against advice), while the other is like telling people “Punch old ladies if it is for the greater good!” and lots of people go and punch old ladies (as advised).

Put it this way – if the teachings of Jesus were along the lines of “Smash, crush, pound, destroy indiscriminately!” do you think the Church’s history would have been LESS or MORE bloody?

And here’s the kicker: Christians and the Roman Catholic Church DID still exist in the 20th century, with all the access to modern tools and methods of efficient killing.

So WHERE were those brutal mass killings of a hundred million like the godless atheistic communists managed? Surely since the Church is the greater evil as proved over 2000 years of history, they would have gone and killed TWO hundred million!

———————

What really bugs me about this is that I doubt you’ll ever admit to seeing that there is no real difference between the two.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winnah!

———————

And I see the problem being just as much with parents as with the school system. Parents continually vote down taxes that will help improve the schools

“A lot of the OT laws are unusual and obscure, until you place them as spiritual typications. Why no mixing of fabrics? It is a reminder not to mix the holy with the unholy.”

It’s not worth arguing with you about this, but it is clear that in the old testament the laws were meant to be taken literally. I disagree with your interpretation of the bible, but it’s my opinion against your opinion.

“Well let’s take 100% of the population being purely homosexual. The species dies out within a few generations, to the last individual.

“How’s that for normal?”

Traits negative to an individual can sometimes be beneficial to the population as a whole.

Look, you obviously know nothing about biology or evolution in the context of this discussion. Come back when you understand both subjects better.

“So WHERE were those brutal mass killings of a hundred million like the godless atheistic communists managed? Surely since the Church is the greater evil as proved over 2000 years of history, they would have gone and killed TWO hundred million!”

Well, first off, it’s not like the Church is blameless. I did point out a mass killing in Croatia in 1942-1943, that, while it didn’t number in the millions, was nonetheless a very large number.

But now we’re talking history. Only those who are in power have the ability to condemn hundreds of millions. And the Church fell from power over the last few hundred years to the point where now it basically wields no real power. Of course there’s no proof that the Church would decide to kill off unbelievers. But then there’s no proof that it would refrain, either.

And, by the way I never said the Church was the greater evil. Not once. I said, and I maintain, that religion has just as much guilt for the evils it has done as does anyone else.

Again, you fail to see something — this time history — any way but through the rose colored spectacles of your religion. You simply can’t take a step back and look at what really happened, or even what would happen were certain people to get their way. If I remember correctly, you never even acknowledged that the church ever did anything wrong.

I said: What really bugs me about this is that I doubt you’ll ever admit to seeing that there is no real difference between the two.

You replied: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winnah!

Sheesh. You take pride in your ignorance and your closed mind.

I’m really glad I looked at the links you put in to dispute my belief that parents are part of the problem. Now, here’s what I said, in full:

” Parents continually vote down taxes that will help improve the schools, parents who feel their child is somehow entitled to grades that child didn’t earn, parents who simply ignore everything the child is doing in school until the child starts failing.”

You conveniently cut my statement after the part about parents voting down taxes, said “Myth”, and then posted a couple of links.

First, neither of those links talk about whether or not parents vote for or against tax increases for schools. Not a word in either one about that particular subject.

Based upon your own evidence, or rather non-evidence, you simply can not provably say my statement is a myth. Sorry. If you want to disprove something I said, disprove what I said, not what you want to believe I said.

(Whether or not more taxes equals better schools is a different argument, and I don’t agree that one study proves anything. But, as I said, I’m not making that argument right now.)

For the other two parts of my statement I can give you examples. Concrete examples from teachers. So I know that in both those cases there is at least some truth.

It’s not worth arguing with you about this, but it is clear that in the old testament the laws were meant to be taken literally. I disagree with your interpretation of the bible, but it’s my opinion against your opinion.

I agree that the OT was meant to be interpreted literally by OT adherents. Just not NT ones.

——————-

Traits negative to an individual can sometimes be beneficial to the population as a whole.

Look, you obviously know nothing about biology or evolution in the context of this discussion. Come back when you understand both subjects better.

Blaaaaarg!!!

I just gave you an example of the exact opposite – a trait that in small proportions of the population might be beneficial (e.g. unmated aunts and uncles to watch the kids), but as the entire population is a ticket to complete extinction!

And no, please don’t just dismiss me with a wave of the More-Educated-Than-Thou hand.

I could do the same you know, “What does a heretic like you know about Christianity? Come back when you’ve accepted Jesus into your cold, black heart become an ordained archbishop.”

——————-

Again, you fail to see something — this time history — any way but through the rose colored spectacles of your religion. You simply can’t take a step back and look at what really happened, or even what would happen were certain people to get their way. If I remember correctly, you never even acknowledged that the church ever did anything wrong.

I believe I did acknowledge as much – that believers have done evil in spite of their purported faith.

———————

Sheesh. You take pride in your ignorance and your closed mind.

Sheesh. Welcome to the Internets, baby. Sense of humour comes free, but only voluntarily.

———————-

First, neither of those links talk about whether or not parents vote for or against tax increases for schools. Not a word in either one about that particular subject.

Man, you are the literalest, most minute-specifics-oriented commentor I can remember.

My gist is that upping taxes to pay schools more doesn’t solve anything. The graph appended shows that costs have been multiplying with no corresponding improvement in grades.

So no, I didn’t disprove the exact thing you said. Yay, we have a winnah. It wasn’t my point to.

Sor-ree for not being excruciatingly detailed and lawyerly about what I mean with my words. I’m an uneducated religious whacko you see. Those scary magic symbols that make sounds frighten me!

I’ve unsubscribed now, you can say what you want. If I believed, Scott, you were at all open-minded about any of this I’d stick around, but over the three or four different conversations we’ve had it seems to me that you are so ingrained with what you believe you aren’t willing to even consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Not even might be wrong in the sense that Christianity is wrong and God doesn’t exist, but that even a small part of your beliefs might not completely be true.

The argument about “normal” is a good example. How can one argue with someone who refuses to accept basic scientific concepts? I can state the science all I want, but if the other person refuses to accept the basic science, then we can never come to an agreement. There’s no foundation on which to build a discussion.

I’ve unsubscribed now, you can say what you want. If I believed, Scott, you were at all open-minded about any of this I’d stick around, but over the three or four different conversations we’ve had it seems to me that you are so ingrained with what you believe you aren’t willing to even consider the possibility that you might be wrong.� Not even might be wrong in the sense that Christianity is wrong and God doesn’t exist, but that even a small part of your beliefs might not completely be true.

You came here with plenty of assumptions – here they are again.

For the record, I have been skilfully argued by various commentors into publicly changing my views on the following off the top of my head: the evidence for evolution, the relativity of even theistic morality in practise, and an apology for going too far in criticizing a homosexual pastor.

I am not an easy mark – but don’t baselessly (projectioningly) accuse me of being an intractable dogmatist.

———————–

The argument about “normal” is a good example. How can one argue with someone who refuses to accept basic scientific concepts? I can state the science all I want, but if the other person refuses to accept the basic science, then we can never come to an agreement. There’s no foundation on which to build a discussion.

The point is that I simply do not agree with your definition, nor your contention that it is ‘a basic scientific concept’.

Let me just completely ruin every single homophobic argument that has ever been posted here.
First of all, no one who is heterosexual or pansexual or bisexual or asexual can have any form of merit of opinion on this because you have no concept of what you’re talking about: a dog has no concept of what it is to be human.
Being homosexual is not a “choice” or a “preference” to say that is stupidly naive and borderline idiotic. By that logic, homosexuality or heterosexuality does not exist. That is to argue that everyone is bisexual to some degree and some choose just women, and some just choose men and some choose both when given the option. If that were the case, there would be no need for people to hide their sexuality their entire lives with “beards” because, if they were so ashamed by the fact they like to sleep with men, they could just sleep with women instead and be Happy for their lives and pretend their true urges did not exist. Since “it’s just a choice they make.” There would also be no need for people to finally “come out” because, if gievn the choice, I guarantee people would choose to live a peaceful, normal life and produce children. Over a life of insecurities and ridicule. Did you know a gay person is 8 times more likely to commit suicide than a straight person? Did you know a lot of gay people wish they could be straight? They wish it were that simple. They hate themselves for it and can tell when others dislike them for it too. Great “choice” they made there.
There is definitive evidence that homosexuality is a physical change in the neurochemistry of the brain. MRI scans have shown that there are differences in the structures of heterosexual brains and homosexual Brains. The predisposed imbalance of neurochemistry may be a leading cause as to what causes homosexuality, to neglect that would be to neglect any tangent that psychology has to being a real science and therefore making any research into serious mental illnesses such as depression, OCD and schizophrenia and the role of dopamine and serotonin, irrelevant and equally-arbitrary. As an extension, this would also invalidate any counter argument, as we would be arguing over opinions, rather than facts. Nobody has a choice as to how their brain works, if so, many life threatening illnesses could be solved via pure will. Not likely.
Secondly, there is also a plethora of evidence that suggests that homosexuality occurs frequently in nature. There are many a wildlife documentary on the subject, all with an abundance of evidence if you so wish to watch many different species “go at it” with a same-sex partner. By extension, there is also evidence of mammals such as the bobo monkeys engaging in homosexual relations when the opposite sex is not available. Sure there’s also evidence that horrid things like pedophilia and necrophilia exist in nature too, but I bet my bottom dollar that the cases of pure, honest homosexuality massively dwarves all accounts of the others. And I know that these accounts don’t exclusively occur in homosexual relations. I know there are species of monkey in which the alpha male rapes all of the young to teach them the ways of life, as part of a “road to adulthood”. And no one bats an eyelid. But a couple of male penguins raising an egg together and everyone feels their need for homophobia to surface? The egg was GIFTED from a heterosexual couple, who had 2 eggs. As specified IN THE ARTICLE.
True, it is not possible for a homosexual couple to reproduce solely on their own, but there are also severe medical complications that can make women or men infertile from birth. And everyone is all for aiding them in the parenting game because of their unfortunate circumstances. To say homosexuality is a choice rather than an inherited trait is to say that all those who are born sterile can have children if they really wanted to. Their bodies aren’t REALLY different from everyone else’s. They can have a baby if they try hard enough and do what god tells them. Beautiful. Thank you high-horse, privileged, people of the Internet. But leave the intelligent arguments to the people who can make valid points?
Next I move onto the nature vs nurture debate. For starters, this debate is flawed. In all respects. It is flawed. Ask any respectable psychologist or biologist. It is flawed. Number 1, most identical twins are raised in the same environment and therefore you cannot distinguish nature from nurture. To further this point, many studies have shown that identical twins are also likely to be treated in a similar manner by their friends, family and entire social network. But, to separate them at birth would be highly immoral and probably illegal. Number 2, a lot of adoption studies have shown that the child will most likely show inherited characteristics of their biological parents: sons of alcoholic parents will have a lowered sensitivity to alcohol and will therefore be at a higher risk of becoming physically/psychologically dependant or even addicted to the substance. No matter how they’re raised. So tango may have inherited this “gay gene” off her heterosexual parents: SHOCKER.
Furthermore, the argument that men grow up to be gay because of how they are treated by older sisters is also completely irrelevant: how would it be possible for an eldest child to be gay? And studies have shown that an OLDER BROTHER seems to be the only thing that can influence whether the next boy will grow up to be gay. But, surely, if the older children are all boys, then they would be growing up in a masculinity-dominated, women-loving environment “as God intended” surely? So where would androgyny come from?
As far as religion goes, any homophobic remark that is in the bible is in the old testament. To clarify. This is in the same section that allows men to rape women (as long as they marry) and sell their daughters as slaves if they wish. Men can also have as many wives as they want, a long as they don’t “violate the sanctity of marriage” by… I don’t know…. GETTING A DIVORCE? So by the same argument, people should be hitting hard on people who divorced because they were unhappy in an abusive marriage. Go figure.
But, I know there’s going to be straight, white, “well-educated” Christians reading this. So I better look up because I’m polite enough to face people when I speak to them, even if they are on horseback, rather than condemning the minority over the safe confines that is the Internet.